1920-04-30

SENATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 80, .foir the relief of Edith Gertrude Willis.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Thomas Edward Dowthwiadte.-Mr. Hocken,
Bd'll No. 88, foir the relief of Thomae Ferby Ga/ten.by.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 89, foir the (relief of Michael Joseph Courtney.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No-. 90, for the relief of Thomas Patrick O'Neill.-Mr. Steward (Lanark).
Bill No. 91, for (the relief of Robert Ernest Beadie.-Mr. Douglas (Str-a-thoona).

Sir GEORGE FOSTER moved:: That the Public Accounts of Canada and the Auditor General's Report for the year ended 31st March, 1919, he referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Mr. FIELDING:: Is this 'the first reference of 'these volumes to the Public Accounts Committee?


George Green Foster: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: It is a very late stage of the session at 'which to get ithe Public Accounts Committee .at work.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT (PILOTAGE) AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On (the motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) ithe .House went into committee on the following .proposed resolution, Mr. Bouvi® in the Chair.
That it is expedient to >
amend the Canada Shipping Act by repealing section four hundred and thirty-four thereof which relates to the mode of altering pilot rates for and below Quebec, and to provide that the said section shall be deemed to have been repealed on and from the twelfth day of June, nineteen hundred and fourteen.
Mir. BALLANTYNE:: Under the Canada Shipping Act, danse 434, no. alteration can he made in .the pilotage dues for the district of Quebec unless the average income for each pildt for three years had been more than $600 per year. This is a statute that ;wais framed very many years ago and we .all know (that the coist of living has very igTaaitdy increased since and especially (during the past few years. Although the pilots of Quebec have made an arrangement with ithe Department of Marine and Fisheries, and also- with the shipping interests, for the season of 1920, the object of .this resolution is to enable me to introduce .a Bill eliminating thils restriction of $600 so that if it should 'be deemed 'advisable in the future to change the tariff it can be done.


Mr. VIEN:: Will it open the door to a reduction?


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Why does the minister go back Ito Ithe 20th June, 1914?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I submitted this to ithe Department of Justice and they pointed out (bo me that owing to chapiter 48 which was assented ito on the 12th June, 1914, lit wouild be necessary to make this resolution and the Bill based upon it date from June. It Sb purely a technical, legal matter to conform to the regulations of the Shipping Act.


John Howard Sinclair: Will i't have the effect of increasing 'the salaries of the pilots from 1914 up to the present time?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
William Stevens Fielding: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Eliminate it altogether.


William Stevens Fielding: There will be no limit? Mr. BALLANTYNE: No.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Are the Quebec pilots making a demand far an increased tariff?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Quebec pilots did make a request (to the department and .also to the shipping people. We were unable to' alter (the tariff owing ito this clause in the Shipping Act' which stated that their minimum income must he less than $600 for three years ito' enable us to increase the jiardff, but as some compensation there has .been an arrangement arrived at whereby they will receive a bonus.
Resolution, reported, read a second time ,and concurred in.
Hon-. Mr. BALLANTYNE thereupon moved for leave ito introduce Bill No. 94, to amend ithe Canada Shipping Act (Pilotage).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 68 to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. S. F. Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture) Bill. No. 78, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, was read a second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Mr. BELAND:: What change does this
Bill make?


Mr. TOLMIE:: Under the old Act a person could collect two-thirds of the compensation based on the valuation of the animal in its healthy condition, and in addition could secure any salvage that might be derived from the carcass in the event of the flesh upon the animal being slaughtered passing as fit for food. As an example, in the case of a pure bred cow worth $150, two-thirds of her valuation would be $100. We will presume that she would dress six hundred pounds of beef which in an inspected abbatoir would pass as fit for food, being only slightly affected. That carcass would bring about twenty cents per pound for cow beef and yield $120, making a total of $220, or $70 [DOT]more than the animal was worth when she was alive had she passed the tuberculin test. The Bill proposes to do away with that sale and permit the payment of the compensation Only.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



OLEOMARGARINE ACT, 1919 AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Tolmie consideration was resumed in committee from April 28 of the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, that It is expedient to amend the Oleomargarine Act, 1919, Chapter twenty-four of the Statutes of 1919, second session, and to provide:
1.	That section three of the said Act be amended so as to extend the time during which the manufacture in and importation of oleomargarine into Canada is permitted until the thirty-first day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, and to extend the time during which the offering for sale, the sale, and the having in possession for sale of oleomargarine is permitted until the first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
2.	That section eight of the said Act be amended to provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to the importation, manufacture, inspection, marking, advertising and sale of oleomargarine, and the seizure and confiscation of apparatus and materials used, or intended to be used, in the manufacture, treatment, or manipulation of oleomargarine in contravention of the said Act or of any regulation thereunder; and that such regulations may prescribe a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars recoverable upon summary conviction for the violation of any regulation made under the provisions of the said section.
3.	That section nine of the said Act be amended to provide that the penalty for violation of the provisions of the said section shall be enforcible Upon summary conviction, and further that in no case shall the minimum penalty be less than fifty dollars.

Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford); Before the resolution is passed I would like to make a few observations thereon. The resolution confirms the old adage, " that water, never rises above its source," and I think I might add, "nor a government above the people." The situation at present demands something more than merely temporary remedies. There are quite a number of medical men in the House, and I think they will agree with me not only that desperate diseases require heroic remedies but that, merely prescribing temporary palliatives does not overcome a disease nor remove the root of the trouble.
This oleomargarine question came before Parliament in 1917. For many years previously strong efforts had been made by those who were interested or desired to be interested, in the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada, to acquire the right to manufacture the commodity in this country and also import it, but down to October 25, 1917, nothing was done in that regard by the Canadian Government. It was after the coming into office of the present Administration that action along the line referred to was taken not by Parliament, but by the Order in Council; granting permission to import oleomargarine and also to manufacture it in the Dominion. The reason assigned for this proceeding was that it was a temporary war measure, and that the existing situation demanded that something of the kind should be done. In 1919- after a further extension of time had been granted and the war had been over for a year-an Act was introduced into Parliament and passed permitting the importation into and the manufacture of this commodity in Canada. The United States experience in regard to oleomargarine-where its manufacture had been permitted, I believe, since IDOL-was. such as to put the people of Canada on their guard as to the difficulties which would be encountered once the manufacture of the article was permitted in this country. I want it distinctly understood at the outset that I have never opposed the importation of oleomargarine into Canada or its manufacture here; but I have opposed, and consistently opposed-the privilege granted to manufacturers and importers to manufacture and bring into Canada, an article mixed with one of our most important dairy products. When the Bill referred to was introduced I objected as strongly as I could to the regulations which had been passed by the Government granting this privilege, and that is the stand I take to-day. If oleomargarine has the virtues which its advocates

claim for it, it can stand on its own merits, and it has nothing to fear. In my opinion there is no justification for permitting the manufacturers of this article of food the sole right to mix butter with it. It is well known that the dairy product represents about forty percent of the component parts of the best margarine, about fifteen per cent being absorbed from the milk in which it is churned in milk and treated with a culture in order to give the manufactured article a butter flavour, the other twenty-five per cent being pure butter. At the beginning of November of last year I understand that the manufacturers had between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 pounds of butter in storage with a view to incorporating it in their margarine. '
Now, so far as my constituency is concerned, I am not very much interested in this matter, although I come from what has always been known as the first county in this country to establish the dairy industry on a commercial basis, the first cheese factory in Canada having been established there in 1864. The name "Ingersoll" as connected with the dairy industry is well known not only in this country but in Great Britain, and Ingersoll cheese has achieved a world reputation second to none. At the present time I do not know of a single creamery in my constituency that will be manufacturing butter, nor a single cheese factory that will be manufacturing cheese this year. Yet in the face of that condition of affairs it is claimed that the manufacture and importation of margarine is not going to injure the dairy industry, but is designed solely to place within the reach of the poor that essential element in their diet which otherwise they could not hope to purchase. But I believe that many of our farmers to-day are competing with the people in the towns and cities in the purchase of butter for their own tables. Consequently I cannot be accused of acting in the interests of the farmers of my constituency, for as a matter of fact they are very largely consumers rather than producers of butter.
But I do want to warn hon. members and the people of this country that not by encouraging the manufacture and importation of margarine are we going to overcome the difficulties which confront us at the present time. Those difficulties will be overcome only when our people begin to realize that hard labour devoted to food production is in the final analysis the enly proper method of dealing with this question.
Our butter has won an enviable reputation in the Old Country. Ontario is the
second largest producer of butter among our provinces. The province of Quebec, where the conditions are admirably adapted to the production of butter, is by long odds our greatest producer at the present tijne, and the quality of the butter turned out by the creameries of that province is very high indeed, and as a result their butter has won a well-deserved reputation. Yet 1 notice that not later than January last, under the administration of the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie), the dairying industry in this country, which represents an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, is to be used as the basis to build up a great manufacturing industry devoted to the production of oleomargarine. That is the very object sought by those who are agitating for this extension of the time for the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine.
It may be said that urgent representations have been made to the Government by boards of trade and other representative bodies in favour of these concessions being granted. I admit that such is the case, but it will be found that those representations owe their origin largely to those interested in the manufacture of margarine. We hear a great deal about the big interests and the methods they adopt. -I doubt whether, in the experience of the oldest member of this House anything has occurred similar to the incident that took place in this House a week ago. I was sponsor for a resolution, and urged very strongly in this House the granting of the franchise to our women, and I am very happy to state that they to-day are on a political equality with the men. What I have reference to is a magazine which was placed on the desks of this Chamber the other day, and which I called attention to at the time. I understand a young woman was sent from Toronto with a bundle of these magazines to distribute here. Let me draw attention to the heading that adorns this full page article, which is, I have no doubt, a paid advertisement issued by the people who are interested in the manufacture of oleomargarine. This is the form:
To the Members of the Dominion Parliament.
Prom the Executive of the National Council of Women.
Do you want our vote? Tens of thousands ot women insist that they shall continue to have margarine for use in their households, and they will not vote for the men who oppose it.
I can scarcely believe that our big, strong, rugged-looking Minister of Agriculture would submit to a threat of that kind. I think the pressure must have been from an
[Stage Direction]
entirely different source- possibly in the form of moral suasion rather than a threat.
Now, hon. members may have noticed that for some time a very active propaganda has been carried on among certain associations in the city of Ottawa, for the continuance of the importation and manufacture of margarine. I have been a fairly consistent advocate of protection for our industries, for I have a distinct recollection of the campaign that was carried on in 1878 when conditions were not very satisfactory here. After the abrogation of the (Reciprocity Treaty with the United States, our people found themselves in a very awkward and difficult situation, but they extricated themselves by developing channels of trade, not north and south, but east and west; and by pursuing a system of railway construction unequalled in the history of the world, we have achieved economic independence. I have been a fairly consistent advocate of that policy. In 1911 when a tariff issue was before the people I entered into that campaign, possibly at as great a sacrifice as any member of the House, with a strong feeling that the measure proposed was not in the interests of the country. I am therefore at a loss to understand why the people engaged in this great industry should be singled out and forced to compete with industries of other countries under very unfair conditions. The member for Frohtenac (Mr. Edwards) made reference to this phase of the question when he spoke the other night. One thing is certain: you may by legislation force the farmers out of the dairy business. The people engaged in the dairy industry may not be an organized body and, consequently, may not be able to force acceptance of their views or to protect their interests as other organized bodies do. But in the final analysis you will have to reckon with them if they are to be singled out in this way.
Butter enjoys a protective tariff of four cents a pound; yet you permit the free importation into this country of an article which may contain thirty per cent of butter,
I and that article comes into competition with the product of the dairy industry. The same thing applies to all the ingredients that go to make up this compound. Now, let us be consistent. If the dairy industry is such a valuable one for this country, it should be conducted and built up under the same conditions which have assisted in the building up of other industries. I am not so sure that one of the objects in the mind of those who first in-
£Mr. Sutherland.]
troduced the free importation and manufacture of oleomargarine was not to show what could be done under free trade in the building up of a great industry. Perhaps they wanted to be able to point to the fact that in Toronto, where American concerns have secured control of the stock-yards, two magnificent industries have been built up without a protective tariff, industries which are turning out this article of food by the millions of pounds. I admit that they did it without any tariff. But under Order in Council they have been enabled to utilize the dairy industry of this country to build up that new industry; they have obtained the exclusive right to mix butter with the ingredients that go to make up this margarine. The Dairy Industry Act of 1914 provides the most stringent regulations with regard to the dairy industry and imposes severe penalties upon those who violate its conditions. When you turn to the regulations, what do you find? By Order in Council these people are permitted to go into the markets, purchase millions of pounds of butter, mix it with the other ingredients which enter into the manufacture of margarine, and colour the product to suit the market. Not only that, the regulations provide that margarine shall be sold in half-pound and pound packages. Butter has been sold in this way for many years. Why were these conditions embodied in the regulations? Did the manufacturers of oleomargarine draft them and submit them to the Government for approval? They certainly could not be more carefully drafted in the interests of these people than they are.
In the United States, where enormous quantities of this article are manufactured, an internal revenue tax of ten cents is imposed on every pound which is manufactured, if it contains any colouring matter, and a tax of one-quarter of a cent per pound if it does not contain any colouring. That was found necessary because of the frauds that had been perpetrated; the manner in which the law was being evaded simply amounted to a scandal. Well, why should there be any difference between the coloured article and the uncoloured article? One would surely contain as much nutrition as the other, and there should not be any serious objection, one would think, to the colouring. But butter has obtained a standing that has not come about during recent years. Four thousand years ago butter was a well known commodity, among the Hindus, and from that time down to
[Stage Direction]
the present it has been a staple article oi food throughout the world. It is well known that milk fat contains a substance that was put there by an all-wise Creator for the nourishment and building up and development of the young. If you deprive young and growing children of this fat substance they will not attain strong and healthy development. At John Hopkins university numerous tests along that line have been carried out by Dr. E. V. McCal-lum; it has been proved that no young animal can be satisfactorily developed and brought to maturity unless it is given the fat which is contained in milk. It is asserted that this margarine contains food qualities and that it is in the interests of the young that it should be sold to the people. But those who have investigated the matter agree that no substitute for butter has so far been found which will supply the needs of the young. Oleomargarine may be tolerated for those who have attained maturity; the fat contained in it may sustain such persons, although I think that even that matter is open to question.
In 1919 certain sworn evidence in connection with the cost of living was taken by a committee of this House. The general manager of the Harris abattoir in Toronto, Mr. J. S. McLean-at that time the only concern manufacturing oleomargarine in Canada-referring to the ingredients entering into the manufacture of this article, said that it contained about fifty-five per cent of tallow, about 'fifteen per cent of creamery butter, fifteen per cent of cotton-seed oil, and a certain percentage of neutral lard, the exact figure he could not remember. *
A little further on he states that about 15 per cent of the finished product is the milk in which it is churned, because it is impossible to give it the proper flavour without churning it in milk. He also referred to the fact that they had purchased 3,659,000 pounds of creamery butter as a basis for this stuff in order to turn out this article of food. What was the price they paid for that butter ? The excuse was made that owing to the high price of butter it was necessary to introduce this stuff in order to overcome the difficulty. They paid for this quantity of butter, amounting to nearly 4,000,000 pounds, 37.36 cents per pound, for dairy, and 45 cents for creamery, that being the quantity of butter which they had in stock on March 31, 1919, when their financial year ended. He also made reference to the fact that they bought up a gieat deal of highly coloured June butter.
When he was asked why they bought butter at that particular season of the year, he said it was because they were not permitted to put any colouring matter into the margarine and that this' highly coloured butter gave colour to the article which they were putting on the market. He said:
The prices are so high, hut we have to buy a certain quantity in any event.
That is, the price of June butter was higher than that of butter bought at other seasons of the year, but he stated that they had to buy it in any event.
Of course we want that June butter for the oleomargarine, because it is a butter with a little colour and we need it for the oleomargarine, you know we are not allowed to put any colouring matter into the margarine and so we have" to use this June butter.
He was asked this question:
Why do you want to put it in?
That is the colouring matter. He replied:
We would like to, but we are not permitted to put in any colouring matter, so that we put in butter with as much colouring as possible.
This is a question I put to him:
You buy the June butter which is highly coloured to deceive the people. Is that not a fact? You realize that if it was sold without any colouring?
[Stage Direction]
He said:
It would not be so palatable; it would be like eating lard.
This statement is made by the general manager of one of the largest manufacturers of this article in 'Canada. As he states, these people deliberately go out and buy highly coloured June butter in order to make this stuff look like butter. On previous occasions, I have stated that this was a deceptive counterfeit; that I had no objection to its being sold on its merits; nor do I object to its being sold on its merits; but if they want to smuggle it into the restaurants and hotels and have it consumed by the people of this country under the guise of butter, that is something that should not be countenanced by Parliament and the people of Canada.
This article was retailing at that time at from 40 to 41 cents per pound. How is it that the price of margarine at that time was almost as high as the price which they had paid for the butter which they mixed with it? Some time ago we turned loose on the people of Canada what is called a Board of Commerce, why have they not investigated the cost of and price of oleomargarine in this country. Why
[Stage Direction]
has this board not investigated this matter in order to find out the cost of the different articles which go to make up this margarine as compared with the price at which it is being retailed to the public? It is true that one of the first acts committed by that board was to threaten the farmers of Ontario with dire consequences if they dared to increase the price of any of the dairy products. This was done in September of last year, at the end of the grazing season when it was well known that Ontario had the shortest grain crop the farmers of that province have had during their whole experience, when it was well known that the cost of production was going to increase enormously. I have proof of the truth of the words which I used on that occasion in the fact that grain for the production of milk has increased until oats have been selling at as high a price as $1.40 per bushel-I believe the market price is now $1.25,-that hay is selling at $40 per ton. Yet dairymen wefe threatened that unless they went on and sold milk, butter and cheese at the same prices at which they were selling those commodities during the summer months they would be fined and imprisoned.
Before I leave that question I should like to call the attention of the committee to some statements that were made at that time, that is, almost immediately after the appointment of the board. iSome hon. members may say that this matter has no direct bearing on the question before the committee; but my contention is that it has a direct bearing owing to the fact that protests are being made, not from one quarter alone, but from many quarters by those who are engaged in this business in which they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars. I quote from the Toronto Globe of September 14, 1919, an article in connection with an investigation that was being conducted in the city of Hamilton on that date by the Board of Commerce. Mr. O'Connor was credited with this statement:
This is not the time for an increase in prices. Prices should go down from now on. In this connection I wish to announce now that all vendors, from the farmer who increases prices on milk or anything- else, will be guilty of an indictable offence, punishable by a fine of $1,000 and two years' imprisonment.
We have heard about the cattle drives in Ireland. I will venture the statement that the Board of Commerce have driven more dairy cows to the shambles than were driven in Ireland during .the past fifty years. Is it any wonder that people would reduce their herds under conditions of that

kind with feed as scarce anid dear as it was and with the threat that they would be liable to suffer imprisonment for two years if they dared to increase the price? To find out what happened, all that it is necessary to do is to read the market reports for the next two months after that statement was issued. Tens of thousands of dairy cattle were driven to the slaughter houses and sold as "canniers" rather than that the farmers should carry on at a loss under conditions such as I have referred to.
There is another matter that has an important bearing on this question, and that is the production of bacon which is an adjunct of the dairy industry, at least, in the county from which ill come. As I stated at the outset, I do not know of a single factory in 6outh Oxford that is going to manufacture cheese this season, and I do not know of a single creamery in which a pound of butter will be produced, but I do know of manly farmers there who have not a hog on their farms to-day. That is the condition that confronts the people of this country when we are so greatly in need of greater production, and we may as well look the matter squarely in the face and not endeavour to evade the responsibility which must eventually rest upon us. I might quote here from an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Star of April 7.
One outcome of the active organized participation of farmers in public affairs is the growing rural conviction that " Labour " in the cities is slacking and soldiering at the farmers' expense.
The farmer has had the fact forced upon him that production in every line of activity Except agriculture has diminshed. Even with increased earnings industrial labour is producing less-and deliberately. The output of the average coal miner, for instance, has declined seventy-five tons per year. And so on down the line. The demand for shorter hours goes hand in hand with almost every demand for higher pay. Except for the farmer, upon whose production our life's necessities are based.
I do not think anyone will dispute the truthfulness of those statements. The demand for shorter hours certainly does go hand in hand with almost every demand for higher pay. We have heard a great deal about the necessity for building houses in the cities and towns, but our population has not increased so enormously as to cause any serious apprehension on that score, were it not for the fact that there are thousands of empty houses in the rural districts all over Canada. If you had those houses in the cities and towns, you would have no difficulty in housing all the people we have in this country. Let me read what

that great Canadian, the late (Mr. J. J. Hill, said a few years before he died:
When the people learn that all the wages In the world will not huy a pound of food unless somebody has gone out and by hard work raised that food, there will be more people raise food, and fewer people tell others how to do it. Hunger is our only remedy, and you will see it within twenty years.
The twenty years have not yet elapsed, but Mr. Hill was quite safe in saying that we should see hunger within that time. The war has no doubt aggravated the situation. I am satisfied that conditions at the present time are such as to demand sane action on the part of every one in this country, and frank statements as to what is passing in their minds, rather than an attempt to curry favour with some elements in the community. Hunger is our only remedy, says Mr. Hill, and you will see it within twenty years. To-morrow is the first day of May and seeding in Canada has scarcely begun. Weather conditions are such as to demonstrate that the farmer is possibly the greatest gambler we have im this country. The outlook is anything but promising, and I am satisfied, and I say it with all the force and emphasis at my command, the prospect is that hunger will be abroad in this country to a much greater extent inside of a year than it is at the present time. Unfortunately it will not be the rich who will suffer but the poor, jvho are likely to suffer for want of the very necessaries of life, and among these is butter for the growing children. I should like to see a movement on foot in this country to give the poor some special favours in regard to this necessary article of food, rather than a movement to wear overalls which will only result in increasing theh cost. It is quite common for some people in this country to take up some fad Which they think is going to be popular, and which will attract public attention to them. I was very much pleased to see the movement which has developed in this city and other places to boycott potatoes. Were it not for the fact that a boycott or something of that kind was in force at the present time I do not think there will be enough potatoes in this country for seed for this year. But I want to point this out. These people may defeat the end they have in view by adopting too much publicity in such methods. I notice by the papers yesterday that 34 carloads of potatoes were shipped to To-4 p.m. ronto, but in view of the agitation that has developed there, 28 of these carloads are being shipped to
the United States. That is the situation.
You will all remember how two years ago we were told in this House that if we adopted daylight saving, the people in the cities and towns would get out in the long evening and produce such a quantity of potatoes and other vegetables that there would be an abundance for everybody, and that the cost of living would be brought down to such an extent that daylight saving would be continued for all time to come. Some opposed the arguments that were advanced by these enthusiasts, who came mostly from the cities and towns. I believe that many farmers of this country took these statements seriously and relaxed their efforts in certain lines andi really believed that the cost of living was going to be reduced. I know that in 1918 quite a few enthusiastic people rented patches of ground and planted potatoes and other vegetables. They worked and sweated on the land, but in many cases they did not even raise as much as the seed they planted, and last year they devoted their time mostly to pleasure instead of carrying out the promises that they made to the people of this country. The situation with which we are faced is not confined to Canada. Unfortunately, it is world wide. It is the law of supply and demand that has created the demand for these products.
Last year we exported some 14,000.000 pounds of butter to other countries. Consequently, there was more than enough butter in Canada to supply the home demand. I have here a statement that was made by the Dairy Commissioner in Winnipeg a short time ago, as reported in one of the Winnipeg papers of February 20. He points out that the dairy industry of Canada amounted last year to $250,000,000, and that approximately $20,000,000 of that was for condensed milk, ice cream and powdered milk. You may pass regulations which will make it very difficult for people to carry on, but it is impossible to make them carry on if they make up their minds not to do so at a loss, and that is why it is foolish to attempt anything of this kind. In the constituency I represent they have not quit farming by any means, nor have they gone out of the dairying business. I believe there are more milch cows in the constituency of South Oxford than in any other in Canada. We have 48,000 of them in the county of Oxford, and almost the entire output of the county goes into condensed milk, milk powder, ice cream, and things of that sort, the value of which was $5,000,000 in 1919. You may put an embargo on
[Stage Direction]
the exportation of milk from this country, and incidentally, there was an embargo ptaced on the exportation of dairy produce shortly after permission was granted to import and manufacture oleomargarine. I am sorry the hon. member (Mr. Crerar) is not in the House to answer for some of the things which he did when Minister of Agriculture. One of his first acts was to pas? legislation permitting the introduction and manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada. Shortly afterwards he introduced legislation to commandeer butter to send overseas. Did they commandeer the butter that was in cold storage, as was done in the United States where a similar measure had been adopted? Oh, no, that would never do. They commandeered the butter that was being manufactured from day to day, and they left alone the men who had purchased immense quantities and had big stocks on hand. A little later an embargo was placed on the exportation of milk from this coun-* try.
These are a few of the things I wiish to draw to the attention of 'the House as some of the difficulties those engaged in the dairying industry have to contend with. I am satisfied that when the statistics for the past year and for the present year are published you will find that there is going to be such a tremendous reduction in the dairy output of (this country that it will be startling to the peqple. You oannot expect those who are engaged in this industry to go on as they have been doing during the year® of the war. They have laboured for twelve, fourteen and sixteen hours a day in face of this fact we find embodied in the Peace Treaty an eighbhour day. Any one who knows anything about the dairy industry understands that it iis absolutely , impossible to conduct it under conditions of that kind.
In face of these facts we have the Minister of Agriculture coming 'before Parliament and asking us to approve of a resolution to extend for .another year the manufacture and importation of this article. I pointed out when ilt was first introduced *and when it (was to be for one year only that it would toe for iseveral years. The same was pointed out, last year bult they now say that conditions are no better today but worse than they were at that 'time.
I fear that 'the conditions will not be any betfer under treatment of that kind than they have been in .the padt. You will find in the years to come, if this treatment is continued, that you will not be able to buy butter even at Ithe price ilt. has been

commanding during the past few years. I may have spoken a little more strongly on this matter than some may feel I am justified in doing but I do wish to draw the attention of members to the circumstances and to the feeling which is abroad .in the country. I have stated before, and I repeat that when the members of the Government in, power in this country remain ait Ottawa, as their duty demands that they shall, they have very little chance to keep in touch with the true sentiment of the country and I know of no place where you can get out of touch with the true sentimelift of 'the country SO' quickly than right here in Ottawa. I desire to read from a statement which was made by a Canadian who has attained a very high place dn the United States. I refer to Dr. G. L. McKay who has been indemtd-fied with the dairying industry of the United States tor many years. He .says:
Milk fat differs from other fats from the fact that it contains certain life-giving substances that are essential for promoting the growth of the young. The all-wise Creator has placed this substance in the milk fat of all animals.
A little further on be quotes from Dr. Halliburton the celebrated London writer on foods as follows:
(Nut butter and lard substitutes are destitute of growth substances. Dr. Halliburton states that the results of his investigations show the importance of butter as an essential part of the diet of a nation at war.	.
Be lalso quotes Dr. Harvey Wiley as follows:
, Dr. Harvey Wiley stated in a recent issue of Good Housekeeping: "As far as I am concerned, I should never give my children nut margarine, oleomargarine, or any other margarine, as a substitute for butter. Butter contains a vital principle necessary to the growth of children which none of its substitutes possesses. I should never give children nor grown persons in my family food products containing a preservative, such as benzoate of soda."
Instead of passing .a. resolution, of thiis kind which authorize® the Government by Order im Council to make regulations regarding this stuff, if you are determined to have it iin ithis country, we ought, right here in this House, to pass these regulations and embody them fin the Bill so 'that we will know exactly wbait we .are doing. Ultimately the members oif this House will he held responsible for the acts of the Government and we might as well have it out on the floor of the House and have that responsibility placed where ilt properly belongs, if we are to be held responsible. I refer to the regulations which provide:

10. Oleomargarine shall not be manufactured in Canada in any premises used as or connected with a butter factory. .
13. No person other than a manufacturer of oleomargarine shall mix oleomargarine and butter.
Why grant these concerns the privilege of being the only ones in Canada to do that if it is intended to relegate butter to the position of a veneer for baser materials? I ain sorry I have not with me the regulations of the United States Government in regard to the manufacture of this stuff. By those regulations a tariff of 15 cents per pound is imposed on all countries sending the stuff into the United States. That lUxplains the difficulties which they have to contend1 with in enifoncing the regulations which they have passed. They have imposed a tax of ten cents per pound on all coloured margarine in that country. They have placed a tax of a quarter of one cent per pound on uncoloured margarine, in order to prevent fraud and to see that this stuff is not placed in the hands of the consumer under butter's trade-mark and to see that Ithe people are not robbed to that extent. The regulations also provide that it shall be put up in quantities of not less than ten pounds and they have strict regulations in regard to the packages in which it is shipped. Under our regulations we impose the condition that it ishall be put up in half .pound and pound prints. (Why is that done? Because butter has been put up in «those identical shapes in the past, although it is necessary to have printed on the wrapper containing the margarine the fact that it is margarine. I notice a question on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Glengarry and Stormont (Mr. Kennedy) a few days ago in regard to the number of convictions that had been secured for violations of the Act, or adulteration. There were sixteen convictions, and there were fines imposed to an enormous extent in the neighbourhood otf $500.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: That would be a
very heavy penalty would it not for people who are putting out hundreds of pounds of this stuff and selling it as butter and on which they would possibly make profits of over $500 in one day's transactions. That goes to show the lax methods that have been in vogue in this country since the passing of this legislation. In this connection.I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that many European countries have taken the precaution to see that this article is not
permitted to be sold by retailers who are selling dairy butter. Why should they prevent them doing this?-by reason of the fact that some people have deliberately resorted to fraud in conneetion with this matter. The whole history oE margarine in every country that has adopted it has been so associated with fraud that every possible precaution has been taken in those countries, and that is one of the chief reasons why the Government of Canada in the past refused to permit it to come in. I want to say that all the dairymen's associations of the Dominion, as well as the Dairy Council of Canada, have passed resolutions condemning the importation and the manufacture of oleomargarine; not that they fear it as a competitor with butter, but they do object strenuously to having the reputation of butter destroyed by its being mixed up with, and used to bolster up and make available, oleomargarine as an article of food. Why should these people be allowed to place this stuff in a churn with milk, mix butter with it, add a culture and churn it? Can oleomargarine not pass as a wholesome article of food without such treatment? Ask yourself that question? Ask yourselves whether we are going to countenance any such methods which are calculated to injure one of the biggest industries we have in Canada, and one upon which I believe the future of agriculture in this country depends more than upon anything else. We know that during the years of the. war almost superhuman efforts were put forth in order to increase to the utmost limit the production of the farms of this country. As a consequence of that production and the scarcity of labour, Canadian farms have become impoverished, and foul with weeds and have otherwise deteriorated. To-day the condition of those farms is entirely different from what it was five years ago. Is it any wonder that there are vacant houses by the thousands all over the farms of Canada as the result of the conditions referred to? Is it any wonder there is a elamour in every city and town in Canada for Federal and Provincial Govern, ments, as well as for municipalities to come to the rescue and build houses for .labourers and artisans? Is this Parliament going to continue a policy which will aggravate rather than ameliorate that condition? If that is what you are aiming at, then pass this resolution and leave as they are the regulations that have been in force for the past two years with respect to oleomargarine. But if there is any virtue in the addresses that have been delivered within the

precincts of this Parliament strongly urging the development of our natural resources and pleading for aid towards scientific research in this country, I say that you cannot afford to pass any such resolution as we are now considering. We are up against a difficult situation in Canada: we have a debt that has to be faced; we have passed through a trying ordeal although we have come through with a reputation that stands us in good stead all over the world to-day. And in this connection I want to point out that none of our young men who went overseas and fought for their country, and acquitted themselves as bravely as they did, were brought up in homes where oleomargarine figured on the table. The food products in the homes of those men were the good and wholesome dairy products that we have had in Canada for many years. I also wish to point out that the largest consumers of oleomargarine in Europe were those nations who* although a terrible war was raging at their very doors-had not the backbone or the courage to enter the fight on behalf of the cause that- was championed by our Canadian soldiers-the cause of little Belgium.
I would also say a word to the women's associations of this country when they are so active as they profess to be in desi -:ng to have this article of food placed on the tables of the poor. If the members of those associations, will undertake to use oleomargarine themselves and allow the poor people of this country who are bringing up families of children-and large families in many cases-to have pure, unadulterated butter as an article of diet, they would be doing something which would be much more advantageous to their country than placing a " threat " on the desks of members of this House as has been done during the past few days.
I have nothing further to say on this question. Perhaps I have spoken a little stronger than, in the opinion of some hon. gentlemen, I am justified in doing, but I am conscious of the danger we are up against-that the world is up against; and mark my words, if the crop for the present year should not be a bumper one, you will have hunger stalking through the towns and cities of. this country.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I
have spoken on this subject before, and I shall not detain the committee for a very great length of time. Some one has very well said, Sir, that it is well iat times to keep silent even from good words; and I think that this debate might very well have

closed with the condensed but exceedingly able and cogent presentation of his case by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. However, we have had the spectacle -which to me is not unwelcome, but which is nevertheless unusual in parliamentary annals-of a minister being followed by two of his most stalwart followers, not to support his proposition but to demolish him and his proposition both; and, under the circumstances, it is a great pleasure to me, from the opposite side of the House, to come to the help of one who seems to be so hardly beset.
I am .surprised at the want of galantry and the want of tact displayed by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) in the exceedingly cold welcome he has given to the representations of the better half of humanity in the pamphlet that was placed on our desks a few days iago. We have been accustomed, as members of Parliament, to receive and welcome the opinions of the male portion of the electorate; but the moment the women get the vote and want to tell my hon. friend and myself, and other hon. members of this House, what they think about public affairs, the hon. member for South Oxford finds his gorge rise. I am surprised. For my part I should be inclined to say to the ladies- whether they make representations to me by calling upon me or by sending me pamphlets1-I am delighted to see you; come, again. I should like to pointout that the advent of the ladies into the sphere of politics is a very hopeful augury for those who-like myself, are in favour of making as cheap as possible the necessities of life; and I should further like to point out to the farseeing politicians on both sides of this House that they had better get in right with the half of the electorate of this country-the better half. I want to warn supporters of protection in this House that once the women of Canada get to know that protection is raising the cost of living, is making it more difficult to feed and to clothe their children, protection will get short shrift. Whatever the men may do they are shrewd enough to receive the representations of the ladies with a better welcome than has been given to them by my hon. friend.
Now there need be no doubt about where I-and I hope those who act with me-stand on this question. We subscribed to a platform which has free food for its foremost plank. Therefore I am-and I hope those who act with me are-in favour of that plank and hence in favour of the resolution of

the Minister of Agriculture. There could not be a better example of the difference in principle beween free trade and protection than this very question as it has been presented by my hon. friends from Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) and South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). Protection has been called in this country, Mr. Chairman, a national policy. It is nothing of the kind. Its outlook has never been national; it is always sectional. If I took the sectional view I would tell my hon. friends to whom I have just referred, that while I have no figures on the subject, I am not at all sure that there is not as much dairying in the constituency of Red Deer as there is in either Frontenac or South Oxford.


William Cameron Edwards: Will my hon. friend
allow me a question?
Mr. MTiOHAEL CLARK:	By all means.


William Cameron Edwards: Is my hon. friend prepared to say that he would remove all tariff duties and have absolute free trade?


Michael Clark: Mr. 'Chairman,
we are dealing with a specific subject. My hon. friend has spoken an hour, and I do not propose at this moment to answer his question, or any quesiton which is so absolutely spread-eagle and wide of the subject. That is my answer.


William Cameron Edwards: My hon. friend gave me the privilege of asking a question which he is afraid to answer.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. The hon.
member for Red Deer has the floor, and the hon. member ifor Frontenac must accept the answer given.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) has just charged me with want of courage, in being afraid to answer a question. I venture to think [DOT] that there are not many hon. members in this House who would back his charge. I leave him at that, and I do hope that he will subdue that objectionable one-tenith of his to which I referred the other day and allow the other nine-tenths to predominate for a moment.
I was saying when my hon. friend interrupted me that I am not at all sure that there is not as much dairying carried on in Red Deer as within those other two constituencies of South Oxford and Frontenac. If I took the sectional view I would go out to seek the support of the dairy men and women of Red Deer; but I am a free trader, and I take the national view, Mr. Chairman,. There is the difference. The national view is the good of the entire nation; it is the good of the consumer,-for we are all consumers. The sectional view is the good of the constituency which returns some hon. gentleman to Parliament; it is the good of some particular set of producers. So we find that both these hon. gentlemen (Mr. (Sutherland and Mr. Edwards) whom I have the honour to follow in this debate refer, quite naturally, not to the good of the entire people so much as to the good of the butter producers of their own districts. Well, all I have to say upon that point, Mr. 'Chairman, is that the glories of South Oxford, and of Frontenac, and even of Red Deer, mu^t be allowed to disappear when they stand in the way of the advance of human freedom and of the good of the entire nation of Canada.
Free trade asserts the right of every man and of every nation to buy in the cheapest and to sell in the dearest market, without the law interfering to benefit any given set of producers. But my hon. friends would make 8,000,000 people, who are all consumers, pay through the nose 75 cents a pound for butter and as much as could be wrung out of them by local producers of oleomargarine for the sake of a handful of dairymen in this constituency and in that. I repeat, Sir, that nothing could demonstrate better than this debate and the attitude of my hon. friends the sectional and class nature of Protection, and the national outlook and benefit of free trade.
Now, I spoke on this subject last year and I do not want to go into many details to-day, but my two hon. friends to whom I am endeavouring to reply made very long speeches, and in the lease of my hon. .friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) we had a speech which was one of the most admirable defences of free trade that I have ever heard in this House. I do not suppose my hon. friend knew it, but it was. What is the ostensible object of the two hon. gentlemen? It is to defend some given industry. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am about sick of this talk of the ruin of our industries by the lowering of tariffs.


Mr. PROTJLX:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: There never
was a better answer to an utterly false argument upon that subject than was supplied in the first instance by my hon. friend the minister (Mr. Tolmie), and was strengthened and emphasized by what fell from my hon. friend from Frontenac. What did the figures show which were presented to us by both these hon. gentlemen? That the effect, or at any rate what followed the


Mr. SMITH:: Never.


Michael Clark: My old and respected friend says Never.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Never.


Michael Clark: I had a still
older and more respected friend-my father, who used to tell me when I was young never to speak in "nevers." I prefer to take the

advice of my father. The only thing you can do with a prophet is to disbelieve him, and especially a prophet who tells you something will never happen, for he is claiming more foresight than really has been given to a human being. I venture my opinion that the application of free trade principles would build up our population to 15,000,000 in ten years and increase our commerce in a -way that would stagger humanity. Now, my hon. friend from South Oxford talked about oleomargarine being unpalatable. Well, he is not bound to eat it.


Donald Sutherland: I made no such remark, sir.


Michael Clark: This regulation of other people's palates is one of the things that can be carried too far.


Donald Sutherland: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not wish to charge me with having made use of a statement which I did not utter. I did not say that margarine was unpalatable. What I did say was that in order to render it palatable the manufacturers put it through the process , I described.


Michael Clark: Then it is palatable?


Donald Sutherland: Eventually.


Michael Clark: I am very glad, for the sake of the people who like it. But for my part I would not trouble myself as to whether it was palatable or unpalatable. It is no part of my functions to regulate the palates of other people; the less we interfere with the palates of others, the better. It is one of those interferences with human freedom that we had better keep out of. We do not want to regulate other people any more than is absolutely necessary for the preservation of law and order and the protection of life and property. That is my creed as an old Liberal, if I may call myself one. If the Government can do anything along the line of increasing the freedom of the people, of removing restrictions upon the liberties of the people, they will make Canada more contented and prosperous; they will make Canada a better country for heroes and free men to live in.
In this connection may I point out that there is no country in the world where a man has less feeling of being run than in old England? The other night a meeting of Sinn Feiners in London was kept from being thrown into disorder by the forces of the realm. That is the belief in free speech; that is the belief in freedom, which they have in the Old Land. I bring the

fact to the attention of my much-respected right hon. friend who leads this House (Sir George Foster), and if he will allow it to sink into that well-saturated cranium of his (I believe that the result will be a better policy along many lines for Canada in the immediate future.
I said just now that my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) made a strong free trade speech. I ought, perhaps, to have said that he introduced some splendid arguments in favour of free trade. One of them I have just elaborated on to some extent: that instead of destroying industries, freedom builds them. My hon. friend proved that by the figures which he gave, because he demonstrated that there has been an enormous increase in the production of dairy butter by the free introduction of oleomargarine. At any rate, the one event has followed the other. Yet his whole purpose, as well as the whole purpose of my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) was to protect an industry which is supposed to be in danger. I leave their logic to them.
My hon. friend from Frontenac also pointed out that oleomargarine is selling in England or was selling in England at some period at 26 cents a pound while it was bringing 40 cents in Canada, and he seemed astounded at that. I cannot understand why he should have been. I have had the honour of being his colleague in this House for twelve years, and I have told him many times during those twelve years-I am afraid he is getting a little tired of hearing it theoretically-


William Cameron Edwards: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: -that the effect of lowering tariffs is to reduce prices. England is a free trade country. Why should my hon. friend be surprised if oleomargarine is only 26 cents a pound in England while we are paying 40 for it in Canada? Under normal, pre-war conditions that was true of everything.


William Cameron Edwards: Is there any duty-


Michael Clark: Now, my hon. friend had his turn; he must wait till I have finished.	.


William Cameron Edwards: Is there any duty on oleomargarine?


Michael Clark: Under normal conditions, under pre-war conditions, you could buy a scarf such as I am wearing and my hon. friend is wearing in England for 25 118
cents which you would have to pay nearly one dollar for in Canada. You could buy a suit of clothes such as he and I are wearing for three guineas, or $15, which you had to pay $30 for in Canada. So that my hon. friend really had no need to be surprised. But I want to thank him for his fact that oleomargarine was selling at 26 cents a pound in England when it was 40 cents in Canada. I want to point out, too, what a number of strange things we hear. When it suits the purpose of hon. members opposite, they tell us that the cost of living in England is as high as it is in Canada, but when some other purpose is to be served they tell us that oleomargarine is as twenty-six cents there to forty here. Now, Mr. Chairman, both these statements cannot be true. The fact is that the high cost of living in normal times is created in protectionist countries by the tariff. It presents no compensation in the way of higher wages or better conditions of living. It builds up the wealth of the rich; it increases the poverty of the poor. Jt lessens the means of support; it increases the price of everything the people buy which carries a tariff upon it. That doctrine il shall keep repeating and those who come after me will keep repeating until the flag of commercial as well as civil and religious freedom floats proudly over this fair and broad Dominion.
My hon. friend from South Oxford says that the time is particularly unpropitious for doing what the minister now proposes that we should do. Mr. Chairman, I take a diametrically opposite view. My hon. friend, in his Cassandra-like utterances, tells us that we are likely to have hard times in this country. I am very much afraid that that is true; I am very much afraid that in eighteen months or two years we shall have hard times in this country. If the history of the past is any guide to what is likely to happen in the future, then the destruction and the waste of war will be followed in this case ultimately by hardship and distress as they have always been in the history of the world. So I agree with my hon. friend as to the fact, hut I disagree with him one hundred per cent as to how we ought to face the fact-and I am glad that on this question at any rate the Government take my view. Why, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to have hard times, we have unrest now, and that unrest may pass to the verge of revolution. My hon. friend's suggestion is that to prevent that we should increase the price of the food of the poor.


Donald Sutherland: I made no such
statement. I stated very distinctly-and the hon. gentleman must have heard me -that the only possible relief is to increase production.


Michael Clark: Increase of production is another question altogether.


Donald Sutherland: No, it is not.


Michael Clark: The effect of a tariff,
I have just proved, is to increase the price of the article carrying the tariff; my hon. friend must follow my argument. There is no earthly doubt whatsoever that he knows in the bottom of his heart that his dairymen will benefit in the shape of an increased price by a tariff on the article they produce. That is what is disturbing the dairymen. Why are we getting resolutions from all over the country from organized dairy producers against this proposed legislation? Is it because they think the action of the Government is going to lower the price of butter, or is it because they think the action of the Government is going to increase the price of butter? I venture to think that if the dairymen who have been telegraphing to us and writing to us and petitioning us in various ways thought that the Government's action was going to increase the price of their product, they would have remained very, very silent. If the manufacturers thought the removal of the tariff from their products was going to increase the price of their products, they also would remain very silent. Their protest is the protest of sectionalism; it is the protest of selfishness because they know that under a protective tariff they take out of the consumers of the country more than they ought to take. There is no doubt about that. Speak to any one of them in private; talk to any one of them in his candid moments, he knows it; he says:	Unless we get such
and such a price, we could not produce the article. Let there be no doubt about that. That is always the attitude of the protectionist.
1 want to enforce this point upon the Government, and then I shall have finished what I have to say. If we are to have the hard times which my hon. friend predicts, with which prediction I am very sorry to say I agree, then prepare for those times by making the lives of the people easier. Listen to the women voters of the country, and when they come to us, as I have no doubt they will do, with other petitions, not only for the cheapening and free introduction of oleomargarine, but for the

cheapening of the boots that go on to the feet of their little children and the little dresses which their children wear, let the ministry give earnest heed to their representations. They constitute half the electorate Of this country. In their capacity as politicians, the ministry will be supported by the views of correct economists if they give strict heed to those ladies. I congratulate the ministry that, on this question at any rate, they are not only following the dictates of wise economists, but looking ahead; they are seeing the trouble that may be ahead of us; they are taking a wise step in preparing us for that trouble. May they go on and prosper.


Mr. JOHN REST (Dufferin):: I do not think there is in this House an hon. member who will doubt, for one moment the sincerity of my hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) as regards free trade. I do not think, during the last ten years that I have sat in this House, I have ever heard him make a speech without speaking about free trade, and I do not think there is a more conscientious and sincere man in this House on the question of free trade than my hon. friend. When he tells us he always was, is now and always will be, a free trader I know he is sincere, but I cannot say that about all of his followers. I read in the press that some of the others on the cross benches said: Well, we are moderate protectionists.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to remind the committee that the resolution before the committee is one to amend the Oleomargarine Act. While the discussion has gone somewhat far afield, it might be as well to get 'back to the subject before the committee.


John Best: I trust I shall be allowed to refer to just a few of the things the hon. member (Mr. M. Clark) has said. The hon. member seemed to think it was a fearful thing for the hon. member for Oxford South (Mr. Sutherland) and the hon. member for Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) to differ from the ministry on this resolution. I am not surprised at that because it has been stated from one end of Canada to the other that the' Grits and the Tories, as soon as the whip is cracked, have to fall into line. It is now being found out that the statements that some of these people have made are untrue, and that we do not always fall into line. Strange to say, the hon. member (Mr. Clark) turned around

and said to his followers: I hope we shall all stick together in regard to this. But since I came into this House this session, there has been only one division of the House when those hon. members did stick together; on the other occasions, some of them voted one way and some the other. Why should we not have the same privilege of independence on this side of the House? Are we not as honest and sincere in our views as they are? But my hon. friends on the cross benches vote so that it will not be said that they vote on this side or ci; that.


Michael Clark: I am sure the hon. mem-bed does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I said that it was an unusual spectacle ; that it was not unwelcome to see the old party supporters assert independence. It was very welcome, I was glad to say. In fact, if about twenty of my hon. friends would vote against the ministry and if we on this side should all vote against them, good results would be produced.


John Best: Any member of the Government will .say that it is not unusual for me to vote against my party. As regards the price of food, my hon. friend, (Mr. M. Clark) told us about England and cheap food. The other day Dr. Saunders told the Agricultural Committee that every dairyman in England was paid fifty cents a pound for hlis cheese and that that same cheese was sold to the consumer for 36 cents, while the Canadian cheese manufacturers were only getting 25 or 30 cents a pound as against the 50 cents paid in England. Is not the British Government which the hon. member thinks never does wrong-and I 'believe it is 'a good government-trying toy this means to encourage production in that country?
The hon. member mentioned the National Policy. Why, he is one of the captains and leaders of the National Policy; the only difference is that he has put the word "new" in front olf it, and he and hits hon. friendb over there call it the "new" National Policy. Everybody 'knows that is camouflage. The National Policy was all right, but they had to add something to it.
The reason that I lam so Strongly opposed to' this resolution its that for the last twenty-five years the Dominion Government, 'the Provincial Government, of Ontario, and, I presume, 'the other Provincial Governments, have been trying in every possible way to raise the standard of our butter as well as the standards of our 118*
other farm products, and 'at the present time they have succeeded in raising the quality Of our butter to' a high standard. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Todmie) will tell us 'that .this legislation will not affect the standard of butter; but from one end of Canada, to the Other, we know that oleomargarine iis being put into butter .and butter into oleoimiargarine, and there is, therefore, -no escaping from the consequence that the standard of our butter will be lowered. While it might not 'be much affected iat present when butter may be a little scarce, the 'time will he sure to coime when the standard of our butter will be deteriorated, and the reputation of the .Canadian butter in England ruined. We have been trying to. build up this industry .for many years. Why .should we endeavour to break it down now? If there were a shortage and a scarcity of butter, it would be different, but there is an 'ample supply Of butter in Canada and millions of pounds have 'been exported.
At the present time, butter is the cheapest product of 'the farm in Canada. Butter in Dufferin -county is selling at from fifty to fifty-five cents peir pound by the pound print, (but 'if the price was 75 cents, butter would be still the cheapest product Of the farm. When an investigation was held into the high cost Of living a year ago, men said under oath before the Committee of this House that it did not pay them to produce butter at sixty cents .a pound. At that time, they were paying almost ten dollars .a tom, less for hay, very much less for bran, and 'shorts and at least from 25 to 30 cents per bushel less for oats than they are .paying to-day. Are you going to try to smabh the industry? We know that the Board of Commerce w.ais sent last fall throughout this country, and we know that Mr. O'Connor stated that the price of hogs was going to come down from about $20 a hundred pounds to $15 or $16 per hundred pounds. What happened? In six weeks (from that date, more brood sows were put on the .market in Toronto than would ordinarily be pult on the market in twelve months. What iwas the result? We .are .paying to-day twenty cents per pound for live hogs in the city of Toronto, and before another year we may ibe paying 25 or 30 cents. Why? Because the brood sows were killed off. Why should this Government and the Governments of the provinces say to the farm,ere of this Government and the Governments of the provinces say to the farmers of this country: Keep your female calves;

don't sell them; there is a shortage. They tell the farmers: We want more -butter and more milk and more animals. The farmers have taken the advice of the Government and have increased their stock, and now the Government wants to kill the industry. The Government established a Food Board, which we might honestly say was a fool board, which went around telling the farmers to keep another sow or two, and in the same breath it tells them that they are going to run down the price of hogs. We are told to keep these female calves and raise them to cows, and now the Government says: We will let certain manufacturers make huge sums of money out of oleomargarine and compete with the farmers who have been trying to produce all the butter they could.
There is not a man in this House who has more sympathy for the poor than I have, but I want to say that it is due to the people in the cities and towns of this Dominion that food is dear, and that it will be dearer yet. Why are the boys leaving the farms? They are going to the towns and cities to work shorter hours. Who are responsible for these shorter hours? The people in the towns and cities are. Daylight saving has also something to do with it. Ask any young man in Ottawa or any other city whether he will work for five dollars on the farm or for five dollars a day in the city, and he won't look at the farm. He knows he will have to work twelve hours a day on the farm and only eight hours in the city. If I was a young man myself I would choose the city under those conditions. I hope I may toe wrong, but I believe the price of food will be doubled before a year or two, and then, because of the decreased production, there will be hardships in the cities and towns, and if it were not for the young and the old it would toe mighty little pity because they will toe themselves to blame. Sometimes a farmer after working fourteen hours a day and clearing 100 or 200 acres of land, feels when he reaches the age of fifty or sixty that life is getting short and that he -and his wife would like to spend the rest of their days in the city, and I have heard young men from twenty to twenty-five years of age say: They should not be allowed to come to the city; let them stay on the farm. Why, if the farmers of the Dominion of Canada had enough Gatling-guns to blow that kind of people into dust, it would be nothing more than people who would use such language deserve. Imagine saying such a thing to the men who have been

working fourteen hours a day helping to build up this country! I travel quite a bit, and the last couple of times I was home men have asiked me: "Where can I get a hired man; I have so many head of cattle and so many hogs. Try and get a man for me." One man told me that he got up at four o'clock last Monday morning, and after doing his chores went to the mill with a load of grain. It was only about ten o'clock when I saw him, and he had been back home and had another load. He told ' me that he had forty or fifty head of cattle, and he had his horses and hogs to feed. "I will have to do that at noon," he said. "But what shall I do about my seeding? If I cannot hire a man, I will just put in what I can, and if we produce only half the usual quantity we will get double the price." We are producing more cream than we get credit for, but where is it going? There is plenty of money in Canada. The Government is borrowing -money and using it in the cities and towns, -and 20 or 25 per cent of the cream that used to go into butter is now going into ice cream. Go into the ice cream parlours in Ottawa or any other city and what do you see? From seven to twelve o'clock at night you will see people who -complain that they are not getting enough pay, lined up for ice creams. They have lots of money to spend. I have heard the question asked,why is it necessary for the farmers to work twelve or fourteen hours a -day? People who ask that do not know what they are talking about. If you milk your cows at seven in the morning you have to milk them again at seven in the evening, because the cows should be milked at the same hour morning and evening. If cows were milked at seven in the morning and at five in the evening, every -cow in the Dominion would give at least one-sixth less milk, and butter and cheese. Who would be hurt then? Not the farmer, but the people in the cities and towns. You must milk cows at intervals of twelve hours to get the greatest flow of milk. I suppose some of these people think that the hired man should start work at seven and quit about five, and let the farmer and his wife milk the cows and feed the calves. But, thank -God, the farmers have got into a position where they can say, and they are saying it, and will continue to say it: We have this country by the throat; they had us by the throat long enough, but now we will defend ourselves. I think the Government ought to give very careful thought to the situation before proceeding with this legislation.

In some provinces, perhaps, there is not much dairying, but there is not a farmer in Dufferin county who is not a dairy man. No doubt they are small dairymen, but every farmer there has a dairy, and it is from a great many small farmers that we get the butter, not from one big producer. *Why my hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) made the statement that there was more butter produced in the constituency of Red Deer-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: In the province of Alberta.


John Best: -or the province of Alberta than in the province of Ontario, he surely must have known better. I have travelled through Alberta, and not one in a hundred farmers had a dairy. I had a relative out there one time, farming 600 or 5 p.m. 800 acres, and he kept only one cow. He told me he would not keep a cow any longer. He had 40 acres fenced in, on which he kept one horse and that cow, and he said that after he had done his day's work on his land he didn't want to stay and look after the cow, but wanted to be free to go where he wished. That is the kind of dairymen they have in the western provinces.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend's hearing must be deficient or I must speak very indistinctly. What I said was that I should not be surprised if in the constituency of Red Deer there was a fair approach to the production of as much dairy produce as in the constituency either of Frontenae or South Oxford. I never said anything so absurb as that the constituency of Red Deer produced as much as the province of Ontario. It was only a tentative comparison I made between my constituency and the constituencies of my two hon. friends.


John Best: If I misunderstood the hon. gentleman, I accept his correction. I know that nearly every farmer in Ontario is more or less engaged in the dairy business. They are mixed farmers, and mixed farming is the best there is.
There is another reason why I cannot see my way clear to support this resolution. I am a moderate protectionist and always have been. All my life on the farm I have thought it was the only salvation for the farmer. I know that hon. members from Western Canada think differently, but I know very few men, whether they be Grit, Tory, U. F. O., or anything else, who will ,say in Ontario; We are free traders. Under free trade the farmer of Ontario last year would have lost on the average
$200 or $300 on hogs alone. That would pay all the duty on the clothes they wear for a good many years.
I notice that many men in the province of Ontario are. very careful about saying whether they are free traders or not. I am a moderate protectionist, a believer in tariff for revenue only, but I could not be consistent and say that with this 4 cents a pound on butter coming into Canada from the United States you should allow margarine to come in free also, in opposition to our dairymen. I am strictly opposed to it and I could not be consistent if I were not opposed to it. If the Government ever succeed in getting this resolution through the House, the only thing they can do, in order to be consistent, is to put a duty on the oleomargarine coming in. It would look mighty inconsistent if they did not do that.
I give this warning, that we are facing a serious situation as a result of the different causes that are operating to restrict production. The people living in towns and cities have no idea of the condition existing in the country. People, such as professional men, travelling through the country do not find it out; the farmers will not tell them, but when the farmers meet together and discuss the situation they realize that there is going to be trouble as a consequence of the fear that we are legislating to hold up the prices of oleomargarine as high as we can for the producer and pull it down as low as we can for the consumer. We must not do anything to discourage an industry upon which the life and soul of the nation depends. We were faced with a condition almost approaching starvation at some periods during the last four or five years. We were told that during the war and it is quite possible that with the mighty influx of population to the urban centres the time is not far off when conditions will be serious for the people of 'Canada.
Do not think that the farmers are worrying about the prices of farm produce'in so far as their food is concerned. They are making money on a good many things but they earn all they get. I will admit that some prices are high now but I tell you that it is the people in the towns and cities who will suffer if there is anything done that will stop production of farm produce. They will go hungry because the farmer will always raise enough for himself. I find that there is an agitation throughout Canada to keep these two elements in the community pulling apart. This agitation thrives upon the ignorance of the people of the cities and towns as to the conditions surrounding

production upon the farms. If we could get our people to pull more together, become more united and work more for the welfare of our country, it would be far better for us than having one class pulling one way and another class another way. There are too many men in Canada who are looking after their own individual interests. As long as a man can achieve his own ends that is about all he cares for. If any hon. member stands up and defends the agricultural cause he is defending the cause of more than half the people of Canada who are engaged in an occupation upon the success or failure of which the soul and life of the nation depend.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be
able to come to the relief of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) if my humble assistance can be of any help to him. It is unfortunate that the difference .of opinion on this question should take the turn of a difference between town and country. I think it is regrettable from every viewpoint and I am sorry that the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) has endeavoured to draw the line, and make his fight, as between town and country. I sympathize to some extent with the view that he has expressed. The tendency of the times is too much to draw young men. away from the country and into the towns but I do not believe that the oleomargarine business has anything to do with it. My only complaint of the Bill of the minister is that it does not go far enough. He is temporising with the question whereas he should deal with it with a firm hand. I am reminded of the old saying:
Tenderly you grasp a nettle,
It will sting you for your pains.
Grasp it like a man of mettle Soft as silk it then remains.
My hon. friend has grasped the nettle gently; he is proposing to permit the use of oleomargarine for only one year more and that means that he will be bringing on a fight of this kind again next year providing this Government survives for another year. He is going to revive the fight, whereas I think we might as well have it out now and have it over. The dairymen have organized against this Bill. We have had evidence presented of their opposition to this measure and I am free to say that, while the views of our fellow citizens who are concerned with the dairy industry demand our respect and attention, they are not at all conclusive.

We are interested as the consumers. Everyone of us has to pay tribute to the dairy interest in the way of high prices for butter. If that tribute is a reasonable one we must not complain. We know that the dairymen represent an important industry; they are a large and intelligent body, they have invested their money, time, and labour in this industry and we are all concerned in seeing that they get a reward which will give them a decent and comfortable living and enable them to contribute to the prosperity of the country as a whole. We are all interested in maintaining the dairy industry of this country and if I believed that this Bill was going to hurt the dairy industry to serve some town interest I would cordially support the opposition to it. But I cannot see that the dairying industry is going to suffer in the slightest degree.
The dairymen in this matter are not wholly disinterested. They have their representatives in this House; their views have been presented to the House and we are bound to receive them with respect, But it is well that we should consider that in this matter they are not judges, but advocates of their own class, and we are not bound to receive their views without question. I do not really think that they have presented us with the correct view; I believe that they are mistaken. They will tell me that they know better than I do and I will not dispute that. But I am not able to see a single argument against allowing the people of Canada to use.oleomargarine if they want to use it, provided they buy it as oleomargarine and in accordance with such regulations as may be necessary for the purpose of guarding against imposition. There was reason, I suppose, many yeaa-s ago when a ban was imposed on oleomargarine.


Donald Sutherland: Would the hon.
gentleman consider it an imposition to be permitted to mix from 15 to 35 per cent of butter with this commodity and to sell it as butter?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not like to
give my opinion upon that matter but I would simply say that I will support any reasonable regulation that can be devised to guard against substitution or unwholesome ingredients, and that will ensure a clean and wholesome product and ensure its being sold for oleomargarine and nothing else.


Donald Sutherland: Then I am to assume that you are in favour of mixing but-

ter with oleomargarine in order to dispose of oleomargarine as butter?


William Stevens Fielding: No, that is a matter
of detail that I do not care to express an opinion upon. Any regulation that is made by the minister and that is designed to carry on this business under proper supervision, to guard against fraud and imposition, I shall support.


Donald Sutherland: Would you have
these regulations made by Parliament, or by the minister, or by Governor in Council?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is generally more willing to have regulations made by the minister than I am. I am rather disposed to-


Donald Sutherland: What about this
particular instance?


William Stevens Fielding: In this instance, although I have not the widest confidence in the present Government, still I am willing to trust them to make regulations of this kind-I am willing to go so far as that. I must say that if they are not fitted to make regulations concerning the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine I do not think they are fitted to govern this country.
Now at the time, many years ago, when this prohibition of oleomargarine was first imposed, it is but fair to assume there were good reasons for it. At that time oleomargarine was not as well known as it is today, and what was known about it was not too favourable, but I suppose there must have been good reasons-for the men who took that step were able men-why that ban was then imposed; but those conditions have changed, and for very many years I do not think there has been any good reason why oleomargarine should be shut out. So long as there was an ample supply of butter at a moderate price there was no reason, as a matter of common argument, why oleomargarine should not be shut out; so long as people could get butter at a fair price nobody bothered about oleomargarine or cared anything about it. But in the meantime, I think I am correct in stating, every civilized nation in the world admitted oleomargarine and Canada was the only country in all the world which banned it altogether.


Donald Sutherland: I would remind the hon. gentleman that those, countries do not permit the mixing of butter with oleomargarine.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend is so set upon that question of mixing butter with oleomargarine I do not think I want to differ from him, but it is a matter of detail which can be dealt with in the regulations. The question is, shall we allow oleomargarine to come in like other products, or shall we shut it out altogether?
There is no country in the world which exercises more supervision over foodstuffs than Great Britain, and we know that oleomargarine has been an article of food there for many years. It is produced cheaply, comparatively speaking, in Great Britain, and before I conclude il shall perhaps give a reason bearing on that. What I want now to point out is, that while Canada has kept up this ban against oleomargarine the rest of the civilized world has abandoned it. Is it reasonable, therefore, to suppose that we alone are right and that the rest of the world is wrong? It reminds me of the old story of the man who sat on a jury and who said, "He had never met eleven such stupid men as those fellows" who differed from him. We in Canada, under the pretence of being better than the rest of the world at large, have been keeping up the ban on oleomargarine, when there has been no real justification for the course we have been pursuing.
It is not necessary to pretend that oleomargarine is as good as butter. Some hon. gentlemen opposite have declared that oleomargarine is not as good as butter. Nobody pretends or claims that oleomargarine is as good as butter, and so long as oleomargarine is sold for what it really is, nobody has any right to make such a claim.
I do not agree that the use of oleomargarine operates against the consumption of butter. My hon. friend from Dufferin has spoken very strongly from the farmers' point of view, and he has given us to understand that the use of oleomargarine is going to prevent the consumption of butter. I do not see it at all. Butter is selling-and it is selling to-day in Canada-as high as seventy-five cents a pound-we have been paying that in Ottawa very recently. The hon. gentleman tells us that it is selling at fifty or fifty-five cents a pound at some point in his constituency-it has been selling as high as seventy-five cents a pound in Ottawa. I do not say the farmer is getting too high a price, I do not say the farmer is a profiteer, I am not abusing the farmer in consequence, all I say is this: . that if I cannot afford to pay seventy-five cents for butter, and I am willing to buy

oleomargarine, why in the world shall I not ,be allowed to do so? That is the whole story.
It is not that I say that the farmer is getting too much; there is nothing to be gained in introducing that argument at all. But iif there are-and we know there are, although it may be chiefly in the cities and towns-thousands of families who will have to use oleomargarine or send their children to school without having partaken of anything approaching the character of butter at all, that is the whole story. It is not a conflict between oleomargarine and butter; there is no such conflict at all. There is an abundant demand for butter, and my hon. friend says there is an abundant supply. I hope he is right, but there is no doubt in the world that for every pound of butter that can be purchased in Canada to-day there is a ready market and a good price; nobody who can afford to buy butter is going to buy oleomargarine. Oleomargarine will only be used by those who cannot afford butter, and I do not 'believe that the consumption of it is going to reduce the production of butter on any farm in the whole Dominion of Canada.
There is one other point to which I wish to draw attention. I think the minister has made a mistake in not making this Bill permanent in its operation, and thus avoiding future trouble. As it is the minister is only nibbling at the matter now by granting this privilege for a single year.
My hon. friend from Bed Deer (Mir. dark) argued that the price was cheap in England because of free trade. I do not want to enter into a discussion of that phase oif the matter, but I desire to point out that the maintenance of the restrictions, referred to in this resolution, has a tendency to prevent people from getting cheap oleomargarine. The minister has told us that there are only two concerns in Canada that are manufacturing oleomargarine. The only wonder is that there are even two, because, under the prevailing restrictions, those firms have got to live from hand to mouth. If I were a manufacturer and desired to invest money in an oleomargarine factory what inducement is there for me to do so when this legislation is brought forward every year and has to fight for its life? Who is going to put money into any manufacturing industry which has no assurance of its existence? The very fact that there is po permanency, no fixity, attached to these conditions, that there is no fair chance for the oleomargarine manufacturer, that explains why oleomargarine is expensive. Remove these restrictions. Enforce all the

rules that are necessary for the sake of guaranteeing purity, but remove the restriction which threatens the manufacture and imporation of oleomargarine. Let any manufacturer in Canada feel that if he puts his money into an oleomargarine factory he has the same chance of success, so far as the Government is concerned, that he has in any other branch of industxy, and instead of only two concerns in this country we would have a dozen. And having a dozen concerns we might get cheaper oleomargarine, not as cheap perhaps as they have it in England, but certainly very much cheaper than it is now. I am delighted to be able in this instance to give my cordial support to the minister as far as he proposes to go; I only regret that he is not making this legislation permanent.


Mr. F. B. STACEY (Fraser Valley):: 1
have the honour to represent a section of Canada in which exists I understand, the largest milk producers' association in the Dominion- I am not positive that that statement is correct, but I believe it is- an association whose membership consists of from one to two thousand milk producers. I have not received from that association any word of protest regarding the importation into Canada or the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada. If they have lodged such a protest I know nothing of it. Even if that association should have presented any petition against this proposed legislation, I would feel it my duty to take issue with it at this time, but I do not believe they have done so.
With regard to the remarks made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) respecting the value of milk, I presume every one fully endorses the position he takes. The association to which I refer is mainly a milk producers' association. True they produce a small quantity of butter and cheese, comparatively speaking, from time to time; but their chief object is to provide the largest possible quantity of milk for the coast cities. There are other milk producers than members of this association in the province of British Columbia, and no inconsiderable number of nonproducers are located in my own constituency.
When I think of the claims of both these elements representing two distinct sides of culture and life, I am compelled to support the Bill. I believe it to be right in principle. I believe that the people of this country should have the opportunity of purchasing such commodities as they desire when they are manufactured or im-

ported under proper Governmental supervision. As I see it the matter simply amounts to this: I am not able to buy a $100 suit of clothes; no man should say to me that I cannot buy a $40 or $50 suit. In other words, if I cannot purchase a limousine I should not be forbidden to purchase a common Ford. If men and women desire to purchase a commodity that may not be so good as butter, we must be very chary of saying to them: "You shall not do so."
Certainly, Sir, we believe in the rights of the individual along a great many lines. We say that within certain limits men and women should act as they see fit. And if there is one particular line in which they should have the right to act without undue interference, it is in the purchase of foods which are essential to the maintenance of life; and if they cannot buy butter, why should we say to them: "You shall not buy that which is second best"? In fact, Sir, I feel like endorsing the position taken by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I am disposed to think that the country at large would support a measure which would say to the manufacturers of this commodity: "If you manufacture under conditions of Governmental supervision, go ahead and produce the best article you can, and put it, on the market in competition with the best product that our dairymen can produce." Let each compete and abide by the result.


Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution introduced by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) involves a question of great importance to Canada, and should be taken into most serious consideration before being acted upon. The question involved is one of greater importance than we are likely to consider at first sight. It is not only a question affecting certain classes of producers and consumers; it is much more than that. It is not mainly a question of giving a certain measure of protection to the dairy industry by protecting his product in the home market on the one hand, or of affording to consumers an opportunity of procuring certain foods a little cheaper and thus helping them to solve the cost of living problem, on the other. It is infinitely more far-reaching than a question between the dairyman who produces butter and the labourer who wants oleo; it is a question that affects in its broadest aspects our whole national life, in that it strikes at the foundation of the growth, development and physical wellbeing of our people-the proper feeding of our growing population.
I would like to discuss this question in its broadest aspects and free it from the idea that it is a balancing of the best interests of the two classes to which I have already referred. Indeed, I shall immediately proceed to show that the prohibition of the importation, manufacture and sale of oleo in Canada does not afford protection to the dairyman in so far as the price received for his product is concerned; and that on the other hand to permit its importation, manufacture and sale does not, in any material degree, aid the poor consumer in solving the cost of living problem; and, furthermore, that its continued use by any considerable number of Canadians for any great length of time is fraught with hidden danger to the future physical vitality of our people.
The production of butter is doubtless one of the very important branches of Canada's agricultural activities at the present time. It is important from the point of view of the Canadian farmer because it affords him an opportunity of developing his business in such a way that the fertility of the soil is not depleted, thus leading to the establishment of a permanent system of agriculture in contrast to some other soilmining methods of farming. It is important from the point of view of the creamery-man and exporter because it affords them an opportunity for the profitable employment of their capital and labour. It is important from the standpoint of the Canadian consumer because it provides him one of the cheapest foods on the market at the present time, and at the same time one of the most essential nutrients for the growth and sustenance of the human body. It is important from the standpoint of Canadian finance because it is at the present time adding to the wealth of the country at the rate of approximately $50,000,000 annually and as a factor in keeping up a favourable balance of trade it is contributing its share by adding nearly seven million dollars to our exports. Indeed, it is unnecessary for me to recite further facts and figures in this connection because no one will question the great importance of the butter industry to this country.
It is well, however, to consider the one factor above all others which will determine whether this great industry will continue to grow and flourish and contribute to the prosperity of the country or whether it will decline, that factor is a profitable market price. In this connection it is well to know the influences that determine the

pound. If the nutrients in one pound of dozen eggs, or 2i pounds of beef or 1.73 pounds of smoked ham. So that if you pay 50 cents for a dozen eggs, you could buy the same amount of nutrients for the same money if butter were selling at $1.27 a pound. If the nutrient in one pound of beef are worth 35 cents, the nutrients in one pound of butter are worth 87 cents, and if the nutrients in one pound of smoked ham are worth 45 cents, the nutrient in one pound of butter are worth 78 cents, so that at present prices butter is much cheaper than most of the staple foods now on the market.
Another reason why it is dangerous to permit the sale of oleomargarine is because it leads to deception and fraud. Those interested in its sale have not shown a disposition to observe the law and regulations, but have persistently attempted to circumvent them, because there is such enormous profit in doing so. To substantiate this assertion I have only to direct your attention to the numerous convictions against parties for selling oleomargarine as butter instead of under its true character. In Hansard of Monday, April 26, you will find answers to some questions I asked in this regard, which shows conclusively that persistent efforts are being made to sell oleomargarine as butter and not as oleomargarine. Furthermore, the manufacturers of oleomargarine in their advertising propaganda persistently use the word butter, creamery, dairy, etc., in order to trade on the reputation of butter and mislead the consuming public into believing that they are receiving something just as good as the product of the dairy.
Again, the Dairy Industry Act of 1914 sets a certain standard for butter. It must be made of milk fat, salt and moisture and colouring substance, and nothing else can enter into its composition. Furthermore, from 80 to 84 per cent of it must be milk fat. It is illegal for a dairyman to buy cheap fats and mix them with butter and sell the product as butter. In this connection I am told that it is possible for the manufacturer of oleomargarine to buy large quantities of butter of the lower grades and mix them with other fats and sell his product as oleomargarine. This is surely unfair and an imposition directly on the dairymen. If it is just and fair that certain standards should be fixed to restrict the manufacturer of butter, and I agree it is, it is obviously unfair to expose him to the competition of another manufacturer

who can buy low grade butter and mix it with other fats and imitate butter in its texture and colour.
Now, iSir, I think I have said enough to establish the fact that in so far as the dairy industry is concerned we are not seeking any protection from any fair competition which we may have to meet. We do not claim that oleomargarine should be excluded in order that we should receive better prices for our butter; in fact, we know that its exclusion would not result in an increase in the price of our product. We do claim, however, that we as well as the consuming public should be protected from imposition and deception as now practised and permitted under the regulations. We would also direct attention to the fact that the alleged benefits to consumers are very small indeed, and that the whole question is fraught with very grave danger to the future health, growth and vitality of the Canadian people, and we therefore invite the fullest investigation and inquiry by the Department of Health into this phase of the question before any further action is taken in this matter.
At Six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock, and again went into committee on the proposed resolution of Hon. Mr. Tolmie to amend the Oleomargarine Act, 1919.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair


Mr. MANION:: I shall not take up many minutes of the time of the committee on this subject but I should like to say a few words in support of the resolution which the Minister of Agriculture has brought in; and for fear that I may be said to represent a purely city constituency I would explain that perhaps one-third of my constituency is rural and in the farming sections of it there are two or three creameries. I wish to say that it is also a pleasure to support the hon. member for Red Deer who is, perhaps, one of the most important farming representatives in the House, and who is taking the same stand in support of the minister, while at the same time the member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy) another representative farmer, is taking the opposite side. While agreeing with the former hon gentleman in his support of the minister I could not help but be struck, as we always are, with his eloquence, which we all appre-

eiate so much in this House, when the hon. gentleman approached the subject from the standpoint of free trade, as he always does, and proved that if we had free trade in Canada we probably would not need oleomargarine, because the price of butter would in all likelihood fall below that of oleomargarine. As the hon. member for Red Deer always argues so ably in support of his theory he finds in me, while listening to him, nearly always more or less of a convert; but I have got somewhat into the habit of checking up certain of the theories that he advocates, and upon going to the reading room just after the hon. gentleman began to speak, I obtained a Gopy of the London Times in order, if possible, to compare the price of butter in free trade England with the price of butter in protectionist 'Canada. After some search I found an item

the only one I could discover-in the issue of The Times of April 1 last, on page 21. This is the item referring to butter, which is contained in the market reports of the London Times of that date:
Butter-There is no change to report in either price or ration. Irish butter exporters have been recommended to charge 350s. per cwt. for choicest salted f.o.b. Ireland from April 1st, the price to be subject to revision by the trade each week.
Now, a hundredweight, Mr. Chairman, is, I understand, 112 lb., and dividing that into 350 shillings, makes the wholesale price- because the price I have quoted is the exporter's price in Ireland-exactly seventy-five cents a pound, and if we refer to the retail price in Canada-


Mr. DIJFF:: What rate of exchange has the hon. gentleman adopted to make the price seventy-five cents?


Robert James Manion: I am speaking of the price in England.


William Duff: You said the price in England was equal to seventy-five cents. What rate of exchange are you figuring on?


Robert James Manion: I am figuring on twenty-four cents to the shilling, which is the value given to it in England.


William Duff: That is not fair.


Robert James Manion: The rate of exchange has nothing to do with it.


William Duff: Sixty-two cents is right, not seventy-five cents.


Robert James Manion: I am figuring three shillings as equal to seventy-two cents, and there are three cents over, which would make seventy-five cents. The exchange has nothing whatever to do with it. Therefore the wholesale price of this butter in England- because the exporters are really wholesalers -is seventy-five cents. I was saying, when interrupted, that the price, so far as I know, in Ottawa at least, has never quite reached seventy-five cents retail. I thought it might be of interest to put that circumstance on Hansard.
I may say further-and I regret the hon. member for Red Deer is not in his seat, I should have preferred having him here to listen to my arguments-that in free trade England, not only the butter-makers but all other agriculturists have deteriorated in their business. In protectionist Canada the farmer claims1, and perhaps justly, that the duties on agricultural implements are a very heavy weight for him to carry around his neck, but it must not be forgotten that the wheat grower of Canada exports wheat five or six thousand miles to free trade England and undersells the grower of wheat in that country. Now, Mr. Chairman, I might finish that argument by saying the thought that strikes me is this: In view of the price of butter in England it might be a good idea from the Canadian dairyman's standpoint to get everybody in Canada to eat oleomargarine and export all our butter to free trade England and sell it there, because we can do so at an advance.
In regard to the importation of oleomargarine into Canada I think that now is the . time, if ever the occasion arose in this country, when we should find it very difficult to restrict the importation of this commodity for the reason that the prices of everything are so high. I understand that to-day the price of good oleomargarine is about 40 cents a pound as against butter at 65 cents a pound.
The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) who gave us a very interesting speech to-day, claimed that its importation caused hardship on the part of the farmers, and other speakers took the same stand. If I were at all convinced that the importation of margarine had really any effect of injuring our agricultural interests, I should without hesitation support any measure, which would prevent that injury; but when we consider that the price of butter to-day is 65 cents a pound, and before the war it was around 30 cents a pound-a little over one hundred per cent increase at least-and that all our butter supplies are finding a ready sale. I do not see that the farmer is suffering very much by reason of the use of margarine. And there is the advantage that the man

who does wish to use oleomargarine at a cheaper price has the privilege of so doing. In .fact, in private conversations carried on around the corridors of the House I have heard a number of hon. gentlemen make the statement that in their constituencies many of the farmers were using oleomargarine rather than butter.
Another point that struck me was the recollection that oleomargarine was the substitue for butter among our men at the front. My hon. friend from South Oxford said, as I recollect-he can correct me if I am wrong-that it was not those who were fed oleomargarine who went to the front and fought. I might turn that sentence around, Sir, and say:	That it was
those who went to the front and fought who used oleomargarine. I hesitate to use the trite saying, but one cannot help employing it:	That what was good enough
for the boys to eat at the front should at least not be unfit for consumption by those who remained at home. The hon. gentleman also implied it seems to me, by his words that the soldiers who did not use oleomargarine could have done better at the front than those who did. I think if the record of the Canadians is due to oleomargarine, it may be assumed that it would have been better for the Germans had they given more oleomargarine to their troops.


Donald Sutherland: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to put me in a wrong position. I stated that there was not a man who had gone overseas who had .been served with oleomargarine on his table at home.


Mr. MAN ION:: I certainly do not wish
to put the hon. gentleman in a wrong position, but I think the first part of what I said was a fair interpretation of his statement; the latter part of course is more or less jocular.
The food value of oleomargarine has been discussed by several hon. members, and particularly by the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy) who showed that the food value, according to the figures he had, was as high as the food value of butter, although he stated, I believe, that there were some vitamines in butter that are absent in oleomargarine. From the medical standpoint, I think that the small amount of butter which, after all, is consumed is not so important as a food as other fats which can be taken in its place. And the statement of one hon. gentleman that butter was necessary for growing children be-

cause of those vitamines or life-giving properties, is offset, it seems to me, by the fact that those qualities are amply supplied by the use of milk, even if children do not happen to get butter at certain times of the year, for most children in this country do get plenty of milk all the year round.
As to the taste, palatability and colour of oleomargarine, I cannot speak from having eaten it in this country, but certainly we ate large quantities of it in England and France, and many times we had disputes in England as to whether we were using oleomaigarine or butter. Indeed, 1 have seen people who claimed they were very good judges of butter unable to tell whether they were eating it or its substitute. At the same time I wish to support the hon. member for South Oxford and other hon. gentlemen wo endorsed him in his request that the regulations should be very strict to prevent the palming off of oleomargarine as butter. But I cannot see that the diluting of oleomargarine with butter should have any prejudicial effect so long as it is sold as margarine. The reverse of course should be illegal. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have very great pleasure in supporting the resolution of the hon. Minister of Agriculture which has for its object extending the time for the importation and proper regulation of the sale and manufacture of oleomargarine.


William Cameron Edwards: (Mr. Chairman, I am
not going to occupy more than two or three minutes, and I may frankly state that I would not even take that short time if it had not been for some special attention with which I was honoured by the hon. member for Red Deer, and the particular form in which that attention was bestowed. I regret that the hon. member is not in his place. He called attention first of all, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that two hon. members on this side of the House, the hon. member for South Oxford and myself, had committed the crime of differing from the Minister of Agriculture in our views on this particfilar matter. Well, I have not been able to observe that the Minister of Agriculture has been as much disturbed by that difference of opinion as is the hon. member for Red Deer. But, Mr. Chairman, I might ask:	What of the hon. member for Red
Deer himself? In his political peregrinations he has had several political leaders. He has sat on your right, Mr. Chairman, he has sat on your left, and he is now sitting on what are known as the "cross benches." I do not think I am making a

mis-st'atement when I say that there have been occasions when he sat to the right under one leader, or to the left under another leader, or where he is sitting at the present time, when he has differed from his leader or leaders; in a word, he has committed the crime which he imputes to me.
As a matter of fact I think I am only stating what is correct when I say that at the present time he differs very widely from his leader. The hon. member for Red Deer has announced himself times without number as an ou't-and-out free trader, yet when 'I put a single question to him this afternoon, he refused to give me an answer. That question was called forth by his statement that protection was sectional, and I asked him, if he, as a- pronounced free trader, was willing to adopt free trade entirely. The hon. gentleman was wise enough to realize that if he said "Yes," at once he was announcing himself as differing from his leader. If he said that he was following his leader in this regard, as his leader is not an out-and-out protectionist, then the hon. member was announcing himself as partly a protectionist. But if partly a protectionist he would have to admit, according to his own argument, that to that extent he was therefore sectional. I was desiring to use his own argument against him, but of course he would not give me an opportunity.
But the hon. member for Red Deer has not had very great success as a temporary leader of the party which to-day occupies the cross benches. He thought it worth while to call attention to the fact that the member for South Oxford and myself hold different views from those entertained by the minister. But the first person of his own particular group to get up and speak made it very clear that he, the member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy) was not in entire agreement with the temporary leader of the Progressive or Agrarian group.
The hon.' member for Red Deer said he was surprised that I should direct attention to the difference between the price of oieomargairine in the United Kingdom and the price in Canada. Why, he says, oleomargarine is cheaper in the Old Country because England is a free trade country.
I wanted to point out to him at the time that while it was true that there was no duty on oleomargarine entering England, it is also true that there is no duty on oleomargarine entering Canada; therefore I fail to see the force of his argument. Certain it is that the question of duty has
no effect upon the price either in England or in Canada.
The hon. member said also that in giving the figures respecting the increased production of butter in this country I had furnished an argument in favour of free trade. He said that since the free importation of oleomargarine and its manufacture in this country, the amount of butter had increased each year, and he deduced from that an argument in support of his pet theory of free tirade. In other words, he said that if the increase in the production of butter was not dne to the free importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, at least the increase (was concurrent with that free importation and manufacture. Well, jif that is a legitimate argument, it may be pointed oult that there has been an increase in the production of eggs in Canada and an increase in the production of meats. In fact, our exports Of meats increased in three years toy about 100,000,000 pounds. But there are duties on these articles. If my hon. friend argues that the free importation of oleomargarine accounts for the increase in the production of butter, then I can just as legitimately argue^neither argument is of any account, so far as that is concerned-that the increase in our production of meat and of many other articles that I might mention was due to the protection that these articles enjoyed. Perhaps the hon. member has overlooked the fact that on many of the articles (which appear every day on the tables of the poor in the United Kingdom there is a very much higher duty than there is on similar articles entering Canada. I might mention, for instance, cocoa, coffee, currants, raisins, prunes, plums, and even sugar. The British duties on these common articles of food are much higher than the Canadian duties; and I could give other instanoes along the same line. The trouble with the member for Red Deer is that he is so absolutely cocksure of himself and of his opinions on 'the subject of free trade that he does not take the trouble to make himself acquainted with the facts regarding free trade and fiscal matters generally.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) thought the Government was making a mistake in going no further, than extending the time for the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada; that the matter should be dealt with definitely and permanently. He told the Government that if they would only grasp the nettle firmly it would not sting them. Well, when the hon. member him-



self had the opportunity of grasping the nettle he took mighty good care that he did not touch it at all. During all the years that he had an opportunity of allowing the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine he took very good care to give the nettle a wide berth. The hon. member said that one reason why this should be made permanent was that the manufacturers of oleomargarine wanted to have an assurance that their business would be on a stable foundation. His words impressed me very much, and I took them down. He said: Who is going to put his money into manufacturing if there is no assurance of stability? That is an opinion which the hon. gentleman expressed once a year, I should say, during the fifteen years that he was Minister of Finance, and it indicates the policy to which he adhered pretty closely while he held that office. He has shown some disposition during the last few years to depart somewhat from that well-defined and very well-grounded principle. I agree that those who are engaged in any kind of manufacture should feel that their business will not be jeopardized by sudden changes; that it does not make for the stability of any manufacturing industry if there is uncertainty as to what position that industry will be in six months or a year hence. But if that is a sound economic principle,- and I believe it is-why should it not be applied to the dairy industry, which is one of the biggest industries in point of capital invested and number of people directly interested that we have in Canada? The dairymen have a right to ask the House to consider the enormous amount of capital which they have invested in the dairy industry, in the manufacture of cheese and butter, and they are entitled to an assurance of stability for their business and for the capital which they have invested. I know that the opinions of some other hon. gentlemen on this subject differ widely from mine, but with all due deference to their views I submit that the free importation of oleomargarine and its manufacture in this country does not make for the stability of the dairy industry, in which so much capital is invested and which has such a direct and important bearing on the industry of agriculture.


Mr. GLASS:: The discussion of this question, which has been under consideration by this House during the last three consecutive sessions, has given evidence of a decided variance of opinion depending on the interests involved respectively in what

we may call rual and urban municipalities. The (arguments of those who are interested in a cheap food for the labouring man have, from their viewpoint, some force, and the same may be said of the arguments used by those who represent the producers, unfortunate drifting apart of the people in urban and rural municipalities, of a lack of proper mutual understanding, not of their individual interests, but of what may be the great national interest. An industry which represents one-eighth of the total agricul-turarl production of the Dominion, namely, $250,000,000 out of $2,000,000,000, is an industry that is entitled to the very best consideration.
I thoroughly agree that it has been demonstrated already that the introduction of oleomargarine into this country under extraordinary conditions has not had that effect in reducing the price of butter that was anticipated at the time it was first introduced. But a force behind that, which is more injurious even than any forced reduction in the price of butter, is the unrest and uncertainty that prevails throughout the country districts by reason of the indefiniteness of the action or the intended ultimate action of the Government in regard to this matter. Last year when this question was before the House, I said that I hoped the Government would be able to see far enough ahead to know definitely whether this was going to be a final extension of the liberties allowed under this Act. At that time the Government gave the same assurance that the greatest safeguards would be thrown around the production of this substance and that precautions would be taken to guard against the possibility of its being used as a substitute for butter in hotels, restaurants, and so forth. Yet the minister (Mr. Tolmie), by his remarks in introducing the subject this session, would lead the House to believe that that colse study of the situation had not been given which would be necessary to enable the Government to determine even now what should be the ultimate policy in regard to this matter. The minister, speaking on Wednesday last, said:
Oleo is used to a very great extent by large numbers of poor people in the large cities and also in the country, and I consider that at the present time it is advisable to at least extend the Act for one year, and during that period to watch very carefully what measure might be adopted to put down the fraudulent use of oleo as butter. It is the intention of the department during that period to accumulate from other countries as much information as possible as to what is being done along this line, and to do their very best to apply this Act rigidly.

That is very commendable and desirable; but in my humble opinion-and we cannot blame the Minister of Agriculture for this- those efforts should have been put forth two years ago. The farmers of this country are very greatly disturbed on this question, possibly to an extent that is not justified. But notwithstanding that, the dairying interests are receiving a shock and are being retarded in their development by reason of these Acts of this House renewed from year to year, and the uncertainty as to what will be the ultimate decision. That is the greatest misfortune and the greatest objection to this Bill. If it were in the power of the minister to say to-day: We are going to extend this for two years, and if he could give the dairying interests an assurance of what would happen at the end of that time, I would be willing to support the measure rather than support a measure extending it for a year, as is proposed by this Bill, and be left in uncertainty as to what is going to happen at the end of that period.
The people of the rural districts and of the cities must endeavour to understand each other better. The people of the cities must not live selfishly to themselves; neither must the farmers. Because the interests of both are after all mutual in the great national upbuilding of this country. I fancy, if they could get together on this subject, and if it could be shown that the agitation and annoyance caused to the agricultural community by these Acts had a deterrent effect on the development of the industry, the city people would realize that the introduction of this oleomargarine was to their ultimate disadvantage. The cost of the quantity of butter any labouring man consumes is a matter of infinitesimal consequence in comparison with the much larger wages he is drawing to-day than he was in years gone; and if labouring men in the cities knew of conditions in the country and how seriously this affected the dairying interests, they might be more willing to forego to some extent their selfish interests and understand that it was in the national interest to increase the production of the real commodity rather than to have this spurious article put on the market to help them out.
The hon. member for Red Deer in his address this afternoon drifted into an argument in support of free trade, and I shall not delay the House except for a moment in criticising or combatting some of the remarks he made, because there will be full scope for that in the debate on the Budget.
119*
But I was struck iby a remark he made when he urged us to lower the bars in order to give freedom of trade and said that by so doing we would build up in our country a commerce that would stagger humanity. If humanity had any appreciation of the development of Canadian trade and of the immensity of Canadian wealth in proportion to population, as compared with otheT countries in the world, humanity would be staggered now. Speaking of trade, I notice that for 1918 the foreign trade of -the United States amounted to $83.50 per capita; of Great Britain, to $179.50 per capita; of Germany, in the year 1913, to. $76.65 per capita; and of Canada, for 1918, the year I have quoted for the United1 States and Great Britain, $333 per capita. As regards the question of wealth, in 1918 the wealth of the United States represented $2,000 per capita; that of Great Britain, $1,600 per capita, and that of Canada, with an estimate of $20,000,000,000 of wealth, $2,500 per capita. If we let the argument rest there, without following it any further-and we might follow it in numberless directions-the trade and the wealth of Canada are such as would stagger humanity if humanity had any appreciation of the resources of Canada in proportion to the population of this country. I shall not delay the House any longer. I may not be here to vote, but if I were here, to be consistent with the course I took last year and the year before I would have to oppose this resolution. I have no doubt what the result of a vote on this question would be, because the weight of the voting power in this House has been very strongly in favour o'f it, for it commends itself to those who represent urban constituencies with a large lab-
9 p.m. our population. If there is to be an extension for another year, I trust the minister w-ill strictly adhere to the policy which he intimated in his statement he was going to follow, and that he will study the conditions in the dairying industry not only in Canada but throughout the world, so that he may be aJble to determine once for all what policy is the best national interests of this country.
'Mr. ANDREWS: It is impossible for me to believe that the mothers of Canada would buy oleomargarine if they could afford to buy good butter, but the fact that we have imported 18,000,000 pounds of it and imported another 12,000,000 pounds in the short period during which this legislation has been in force is proof positive to my mind either that good Canadian butter is not available or that many thousands of our

good people have not the price with which to purchase it. Therefore, I am going to support the resolution. I have, however, one suggestion to make, and it is this: I have estimated that it will take nearly 150,000 cows to make up that shortage of butter fat. Now you cannot make a cow in one year. My hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, is a practical farmer and he must know that if he has a good heifer calf born to-day She will not be producing much milk one year from now. I would therefore suggest to him-he knows exactly what I mean-that the time should be extended for at least three years because it will take at least that long to produce the cows to make up the shortage.
(Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):	It appears
to me that there has been a good deal of contradiction in this discussion. We have, for example, the hon. member (Mr. J. W. Kennedy), arguing that the so-called vita-mines are absent from oleomargarine, and that therefore it should not be imported. On the other hand, we have the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) arguing that this oleomargarine is mixed with butter, which does contain some vitamines, and that this compound should not be imported. I think a solution of this difficulty can be found and should be found. I think there are two things which the Government must do. First of all, it should keep before it at all times the problem of how to reduce to the lowest possible level the cost of the poor man's living. (Secondly, it should always remember that it must not ruin our great dairying industry on the building up of which millions of dollars and years of time have been spent.
I think the solution may be found in a more stringent form of regulation. My nature is not that of a prohibitionist. I do not think these things should be excluded from our country. So long as the man has the price to pay for oleomargarine, I think he should have the privilege of buying it. On the other hand, I think he should be protected against fraud, so that he will get what he is paying for and will know what he is getting. I do not believe there is any man in this country who would buy and eat oleomargarine if he could afford to buy butter, but there are a lot of people in this country who cannot afford to pay 65 or 70 cents a pound for butter, and I think it is the duty of the Government to provide, so far as they can, a substitute for these people. I think there is a lot to be said for the arguments made by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) and the

hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), that too much liberty is given to the importers and the manufacturers of oleomargarine, which allows them to pu't up their .product in such a form that it appears to be butter. I do not think that is fair to the poor man who goes into a country store and gets a pound of oleomargarine when lie thinks he is buying butter. I think the two purposes I have mentioned could be served if the regulations were made more stringent. I can see the great advantage it will be in the future to the dairying industry of this country to have extended markets. I can also see that when the production of the world overtakes consumption that industry my be injured through the very steps we are now taking. I have in my hand a letter written by a manufacturer of oleomargarine condemning as harmful the practice of mixing butter with oleomargarine. He says, and rightly I think, that the article should stand on its merits. He is producing an article which is equal to any brand of oleomargarine on the market, and not 'an ounce of butter enters into it. If the minister would make the regulations more stringent so as to protect the buyer, he would at the same time be protecting the great dairying industry, and oleomargarine could come into this country and stay for good. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) that it is no use temporizing with this matter. We cannot go on excluding things from this country; we cannot live by ourselves. If people want to buy oleomargarine they should have the privilege of buying it, but the element of fraud should be removed as far as possible so that the people will know what they are getting.


Mr. BOYCE:: 
Mr. HALBERT:: I wias not surprised to observe hon. members on the opposite side who spoke against the importation of margarine take that stand because they acted in accordance with theiT own principles of protection. One of them, the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) told us that it would be almost impossible to regulate margarine. If we can regulate the feed that we give to our hogs, surely we can regulate the food that goes on the table of the poor man. Yet I would like to emphasize what the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) says in regard to regulating the traffic in oleomargarine. I think they Should not be allowed to put any butter in oleomargarine, that it should be sold as oleomargarine and that they should keep butter out of it altogether. It should be labelled as oleomargarine and the word "butter" should not appear on the label at all. I was not surprised to hear the hon. member for Dufferin say that it would be almost impossible for the Government to regulate oleomargarine because I notice that the Government does not even attempt to regulate the time. The Daylight Saving Bill has been mentioned in this discussion. It is left to the cities to regulate the time. In this city they are regulating the time not only for themselves but for the House of Commons. This Daylight Saving Bill has been discussed a lot, but I never heard of any man who- saved daylight, unless it was Joshua when he told the sun to stand still.
I hope that the hon. member for Fron-tenac and the hon. member for South Oxford will think of the poor when the Budget comes down as earnestly as they are thinking of them now and that they will -see, if they want to- help the poor in regard to iwhat they buy, that the duty does not allow manufacturers, such as the Dominion Textile Company, to. make 310 per cent profit on the clothes that the poor wear.
I believe that if oleomargarine is properly regulated-and I have enough confidence in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tdlmie) to know that he will see that it is put on the market in its original form and not adulterated-if so regulated not many

will use it on their table and the farmers will be satisfied if strictly regulated so as not to deceive.


William Stevens Fielding: I should like to make a comment nipon a portion of tlhe speech of the hon. member for Fxontenac (Mir. Edwards) in wihioh he made some reference to my remarks earlier in the day. There are tiwo points in regard to which the hon. gentleman referred to myself. I must confess that I did not see the force of his reference as applied to the question before the Chair; however I shall! not diwel! upon that. His first point was that, while I wa.s ready to advise the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) to grasp the nettle firmly and deal with it effectively, in the fifteen years in which I was Minister of Finance I never grasped the nettle at all although I might have done so. The hon. gentleman might have added that my successor in office for a number of years never	grasped the nettle.
There was no nettle in those days. I cannot recall that in the whole fifteen years of my administration as Minister of Finance-although I must not speak too positively-anybody ever approached me to dis-1 cuss the question of oleomargarine at all. The truth is that so long as we could get butter at a reasonable price-as the hon. member for Muskoka said a few moments ago-nobody wanted oleomargarine; and it was only when in the lapse of time high prices came and people found they could not afford to use butter, that for the first time the question of oleomargarine came up. I hope I have given my hon. fiiend good reasons why, during the whole fifteen years, I did not "grasp the nettle"; it was because there was no "nettle" at that time.
The second point to which my hon. friend referred is the tariff. The hon. gentleman has mixed two things-this question of oleomargarine and the question of the tariff.
I did not touch the tariff question at all. It is true the Government's resolution proposes the free admission of oleomargarine, hut I expressed no opinion oh that. This is perhaps not the best time to propose new duties on any class of foodstuffs, and I am content to let that stand until .the Budget is presented-for the Minister of Finance then, if he wishes, to put a duty on oleomargarine. That is a fairly debatable question. I am not recommending it, but I wish to call the hon. member's attention to the fact that when I spoke of stability I did not make any reference to the tariff in connection with oleomargarine. I did not discuss that question at all; I did 
not ask that any guarantee be given to the manufacturers of oleomargarine with regard to the tariff. I suppose they would Hike to have a duty on oleomargarine, most likely they would, but I have not the pleasure of knowing. I have not met any of them; I do not even know who the manufacturers of oleomargarine are; but I have no doubt that like other manufacturers they would he very glad to have a duty upon imports. But when I spoke of giving the manufacturers a privilege, all the privilege I asked for was for them to have the privilege to do business without interruption. That is all-simply the privilege for them to make the goods if they were nutritious and pure, subject to any regulation the minister might see fit to make for the protection of the public against fraud; that the manufacturer should be permitted to make this article and import it, subject to whatever the customs law may be, instead of being debarred from doing so as he is by the present law.


William Cameron Edwards: May I call my hon. friend's attention to one point?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: I think my hon. friend has overlooked one thing. He said that when he as in office there was not any need of people looking for oleomargarine because the price of butter was not high. The hon. gentleman has forgotten that very full report which was made by his present leader (Mr. Mackenzie King)-then Minister of Labour in the Laurier Government -which stated that the prices of foodstuffs were so high at that time that the people were on the verge of a revolution. I am sure he will admit that that report influenced him to open the doors and let butter, and all other kinds of foodstuffs come in free. Such was the situation then. It is true that during that time-taking a period of twenty years-the price of dairy butter had run from as low as ten cents a pound to as high as twenty-two cents a pound, an average of sixteen and a half cents a pound; and the price of creamery butter ran from sixteen to thirty-two cents a pound, or an average of twenty-two cents a pound. Notwithstanding that, the then Minister of Labour-now the present leader of the Opposition-said in the report referred to that the prices of foodstuffs, including butter at an average price of twenty-two cents a pound-were .so high that the people of the country were on the verge of revolution.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is getting away from the point. My statement was that during the whole fifteen years to which the hon. gentleman referred there was no question of removing the ban from oleomargarine. I sat in the House with my hon. friend, and you may depend upon it if there was any public opinion clamouring for the removal of the ban at that time my hon. friend himself, I am quite sure, would have heard of it. At all events, during our period of office, there was a strong party in the House differing from us. And I repeat the statement now, that during the whole fifteen years-to the best of my knowledge and belief-no request was ever made to the Government to remove the ban from oleomargarine.


Mr. LEGER:: We have heard a good
deal of discussion in this House, not only during the present session, but last year, and doubtless on other occasions, and a great many hon. gentlemen have taken part in that discussion. Many of them have expressed the desire that the people should be free to use oleomargarine as an article of food, but I believe it is only proposed to extend the privilege of importation and manufacture for another year. After that, as I understand it, this will be no longer permitted. If moTe than that were proposed I would certainly feel it my duty to offer this legislation very strong opposition, because from all that I can see its effect would be nothing less than the destruction of the dairy industry throughout Canada. In the part of Canada from which I come the farmers have to use their utmost knowledge and ability to achieve success in carrying on the industry of agriculture. It is imperatively necessary for them in doing so to raise live stock and thus provide fertilizer for the land. If the dairy industry were wrecked it would undoubtedly kill the great farming industry of the country. The concession which is now proposed may help labourers in the city to a' certain extent. When butter was sold at twenty-five cents a pound those labourers were in receipt of a daily wage of $1.25 to $1.50; but it must be remembered that, even though the price of butter has now mounted to fifty or sixty cents a pound, the wages of those labourers have been augumented to $3 or $4 per diem. There is a great,deal of talk about the price of butter, but why is there no outcry about the price of sugar, or the price of meat? Meat is a necessary food for men engaged in strenuous labour, and yet it is
twice, or three Or four times, what it was in years gone by. The enhanced price of meat and other foodstuffs has contributed to the high cost of living. But I do not think the remedy for that is to cut down the dairy industry and to handicap the farmer in the operations he carries on.
In our part of the country the dairy industry is a most important one, perhaps the most important in connection with farming, and having the preservation of that industry in view I say it would be the part of prudence not to open the doors to the importation and manufacture of this inferior food. Even though it might be five or ten cents a pound cheaper than butter it cannot possibly take the place of the latter as a good and wholesome article of diet.


Mr. MOWAT:: Notwithstanding the reference which has been made by my genial and much respected friend from Carleton county (Mr. Boyce) as to the lawyers taking part in this discussion yet, as a member of that despised class I want to say a word or two on behalf of the consumers who live in the large cities. The discussion so far has gone rather far afield.
I support the resolution for these reasons:
If the resolution were defeated it would mean the total exclusion of this commodity, and it seems to me that such a result would be directly against the interests of our people. I say that because, although it has not come out in the course of the debate, the original statute passed in 1914 provided that:
No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or offer for sale, or have in his possession any olemargarine.
If we defeat the resolution that is the condition of affairs that we must go back to. I am quite certain that in large centres where people have learned the value of this article as a food they would deeply resent any action which tended toward the total exclusion of oleomargarine.
In 1914 when this legislation was passed the dairymen were apparently on top, and . they were able to secure the adoption of their views because at that time a prejudice existed against oleomargarine. But we have been told by an hon. member who served at the front, that oleomargarine was the only food of this kind that the soldiers had at the front, and they liked it as well as the butter they had been used to in Canada. Another hon. member stated today that he had tasted oleomargarine in a high-class restaurant and thought he was eating butter.

I shall not attempt to go into the question of the relative nutrients and calories contained in oleomargarine and in butter; I leave that question to be dealt with by those who are conversant with food values. It is sufficient that our people believe that oleomargarine is a good food, and I know that thousands of people in my constituency desire the privilege of purchasing oleomargarine simply because they cannot afford to pay the higher price for butter, and they are quite satisfied with this substitute.
I am also confirmed in my view by the opinion of women, who, we must admit, are the best judges on these domestic questions. We have been told that a circular was put on our desks a few days ago by the National Council of Women, and it has been condemned as an improper proceeding. Well, I think it might be very well excused, as the ladies are not yet versed in the rules of this House, and I am quite sure that this propaganda work was done quite innocently and not with the idea of offering any affront to our traditions. As I say, it must be conceded that women are supreme in the domestic realm, and the National Council of Women is a body of experts on domestic questions. They make a study of these problems, and it is seldom that anything printed in their magazine or spoken at their meetings is open to criticism. Therefore it is higly important, to me at any rate, what position those women take upon such a question as this. They have compared oleomargarine with butter, they have studied the needs of the poorer classes, and they are strongly in favour of not excluding this article of food from the homes of the poorer people. These women experts are unselfish in their study of economic questions such as this, and as they having definitely come to the conclusion that our people need this article, I would be very reluctant to oppose them in the stand they have taken.


Mr. KEEFER:: Some reference has been made to the injury the continued importation and manufacture of margarine might cause to the dairy interests, and therefore I desire to quote some figures relating to our but'ter exports. Oleomargarine was permitted to come into this country at the beginning of 1918 on the recommendation of.the Food Board presided over by the late Mr. Hanna. On the Sls't of May, 1918, according to the Customs returns, we exported 4,926,154 pounds; on the 31st of May, 1920, we exported 17,612,605 pounds or four times as much. Therefore with this in-

crease in our butter production ft does not .look as if our dairy interests were hurt by allowing our poor people to buy oleomargarine.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: What effect did the
importation of oleomargarine have on our cheese exports?


Francis Henry Keefer: The cheese exports according to the Customs returns for May 31, ,1918, were 174,878,313 pounds; but I have not got the 1920 figures.
Mr. iSEXSiMITlH: Have you the figures for >1917?


Francis Henry Keefer: Yes; 194,904,336 pounds. 1 would like to ask my hon. friend, how much we have increased our manufacture of condensed milk? Dairy products do not go into butter and cheese only.
* Mr. SEXlSMTTH:	I am not opposed to
the poor man getting margarine, but I am opposed, as the hon. member for South .Oxford says, to the mixing of butter in oleomargarine and selling dt to the public-I do not care under what name.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to this discussion, and when I remembered the speech delivered a day or two ago before the Agricultural Committee by Dr. Robertson, wheb he stated the seriousness of the food situation of the world, [DOT]I felt that I could not oppose the poor man having oleomargarine. Therefore, when the painister announced that he had decided to extend the time for the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine another year I did not care to interfere. But I want to [DOT]say to hon. gentlemen to-night that the poor people we have heard so much about to-day are buying butter fat in the city of Ottawa every day by the thousands at the rate of $5 a pound, and not saying a word about it-in the ice-cream parlours. That ds all right; I am not complaining about it. But when we hear so much talk about the price oif butter, I want .to say that the farmer in Ontario producing butter to-day, and butter only, does not make 50 cents a day for a 12-hour day selling his product at 60 cents a pound,-and the hon. Minister of Agriculture knows it.
I think we should go very carefully when we are dealing with matters of this kind to be certain that we do not discourage our farmers, for there never was a time when we wanted greater production and more production than to-day, if we are to save Canada and the Empire. According to Dr. Robertson we are practically facing world starvation, and if Providence is not good

to us this year in granting an abundant harvest on this continent, millions of people will be facing starvation.
I do not care to go into derails, hut really the letters we 'get in connection with oleomargarine would make any honest, sensible man laugh. I received the other day a long communication, covering two or three foolscap pages, from the Retail Merchants' Association, and, would you believe it, Mr. Chairman, they say that the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada has already raised the price of hogs one dollar per head and price of beef and cattle two to three dollars per head. Well, that is all in the interests of the farmer, but what an argument to advance.
Now, I have no objection to people using oleomargarine that is oleomargarine and not butter. If they care to eat that product, surely they should have it; I sympathize with them for having to eat it. I read in a magazine some time ago that in 1917 some 20,000,000 pounds of whale oil were used in Sweden in the manufacture of oleomargarine. Whale oil may make good oleomargarine; the food thus produced may be quite wholesome. A friend of mine was telling me a week or ten days ago* that he had read an article in some paper which stated that the fat taken off beef hides was being used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. A few days afterwards he happened -to be in a tannery while they >vere removing the oil off the top of the fat. The men in the tannery pointed out that nothing of that kind was now wasted. He said that he immediately thought of the article he had read a day or two before, and thought: If that is what is going into oleomargarine, no oleomargarine for me. However, if the minister surrounds the manufacture of oleomargarine with strong safeguards and prevents the mixinig of butter with it, I will support the resolution for this year.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The hon. member says that oleomargarine is sometimes made from the fat which is scraped from hides.


John Albert Sexsmith: Well, I did not say that was done; I was giving somebody else's statement.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: So far as Canada is concerned, this is impossible. All oleomargarine manufactured in this country is made under the closest supervision of our Meat Inspection Branch, and only fats of first-class quality are included. With regard to oleomargarine ruining the dairy industry, I may say that its manufacture did not
have that effect before, during, or after the war in many countries where oleomargarine has been manufactured for a number of years. In fact, in one of the .best-known .butter countries in Europe, Denmark, oleomargarine has been manufactured and used ,for very many years. The farmers there export their high-class butter to the London market and use oleomargarine. Another striking fact is that while oleomargarine has been manufactured and sold in this country for the last two or three years, cattle are still very high in price, and the same is true of butter. So far as the regulations are concerned, the Department of Agriculture proposes to prevent fraud as far as it is possible to do so. Judging from the arguments that have been advanced on both sides, the greatest objection to oleomargarine lies in the fact that it is very often sold .as butter. To overcome that we are insisting on having the word "oleo" stamped clearly on every package, into the very article itself, so that the name cannot be removed with the wrapper. Moreover, we have increased the minimum fine for any offence against the regulations from $10 to $50. In addition to that, arrangements are under way which are designed to make the inspection very much closer than it has ever been.


Donald Sutherland: Is it the intention to permit the packing of oleomargarine in identically the same packages as butter? And are the manufacturers of oleomargarine still to have the monopoly of the right to mix butter with another product?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have received a suggestion from a certain dairy organization asking that the size of the packages be increased; that matter is under consideration. We have not permitted the manufacture of oleomargarine in butter factories for the reason that it is most difficult to keep track of such factories. The abattoirs in which oleo is made are undeT the constant supervision of the Meat Inspection Branch.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Judging from the number o.f speeches made on both sides of the House and the variety of opinions expressed, I am disposed to think that there will be a division on this resolution, and I do not care to give a silent vote.
The difference between oleomargarine and butter is a difference which exists in connection with many other articles that enter into the economy of life. If a man cannot buy butter and is obliged to buy the next best thing that he can get I do not think that

we should put any obstacles in his way. If he and the members of his family like oleomargarine, and that product is found to be healthful and nutritious food, I do not see why he should be prevented from buying it. The same thing applies to many other phases of life. When travelling on a railway train some people use the second-class coach, some the first-class, some the parlour car, some the drawing rooms. I suppose they would all like to travel in the drawing rooms and parlour cars, but if they cannot afford to do that they do the next best thing; they cut their coat according to their cloth. Surely we should not say to the man who is travelling in a second-class car: You have no business to travel here; you must go into the more expensive cajs; the Government want to make more revenue out of these railroads; consequently, you may not travel as you like; you must travel as we order you to. travel. Many of us would like to wear 'broadcloth, to dress in purple and fine linen, hut we may be able to afford nothing better than homespun and overalls. We would like the higher class of goods, but if we cannot afford them it is nobody's business to interfere with our making the most of our income. If the farmers expect a monopoly of the market for butter and dairy products, . they must rise to the occasion and supply those products at reasonable prices. That applies not only to butter, but to all articles of production or manufacture.
I was rather pained to hear some hon. members object to a little butter going into this oleomargarine. I thing if is cruel to say that the poor man (who cannot afford to buy the good butter should not be permitted to give any butter at all to the little family sitting round his table. If a little butter goes into this product, surely it is better for those who consume it because that butter is in it, and it is to that extent a market for the people who produce butter, So that they axe not suffering in that regard. Good butter need not, of course, be afraid of competition in the open market with oleomargarine, and therefore there .should be no objection to making this article as good as possible if we are going to have it at all.
This question opens up, to some extent, the question of the high cost of living and involves questions of domestic science and relations, etcetera, which have been discussed on this occasion. I would draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the wider scope of the subject with which we are dealing. We are complaining and,

I think, properly, of the high cost of living generally and the very high prices of articles that men who live and have families must have. It is extraordinary that those prices are soaring so high and yet nothing is being done in an endeavour to curb them. For some years, we have been discussing in this House a court that would have some control over those prices. We got that court, and I am sorry to say that it does not seem to be receiving the support that the Government should give it. The chairman of that court has resigned; the court has been broken up and to some extent demoralized. The law which it has been administering has been found fault with by the Supreme Court, and its decisions have been rendered ineffective by reason of some defect in the statute. My experience of courts and laws is that if a high court finds that a statute of any Parliament does not furnish the machinery that was intended to be furnished and that it is weak or defective, Parliament at once comes to the rescue and furnishes the material necessary to' perfect that statute so far as its weakness has been revealed by the decision of the court. If a recent decision of the Supreme Court has shown weakness in the Act constituting the Board of Commerce, it is our duty at once to come to the rescue and complete the machinery that is proposed to afford relief to the people bf this country who complain of high prices. This is exactly along the line we are discussing in regard to food products, of high prices and what shall be done to make the cost of living lower so as to show that we have an interest 'n these things, and that, Imerely because we may ourselves individually get along without very much trouble iwe are not forgetting our brethren who .may not be equally favoured. The prices of sugar, potatoes, flour and so fourth are simple matters with which we could deal .and with Which the Board of Commerce could deal if it were property equipped for that work, if it is not so now. We 'should keep that court fully manned, and if there is any weakness in the Act, that weakness should be removed. It is only within a very few days that I received communications from certain parts of the country to the effect that potatoes which were selling for $1 a bushel all summer, all at once went to $3.50 per bushel,


Georges Henri Boivin: I must call the hon. member to ordeT and remind him that we are at .present discussing the resolution before the committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I stated that I thought this question Opened up for discussion these other questions, and I think it would be at the stage when I made that statement that I should be called to order. I do. not wish to be out of order; but if we are discussing foodstuffs, and if we are manufacturing oleomargarine because it is necessary in order to help the poor people aJlong, I should think I was in order in bringing those matters to the attention of the Government. The minister, of course, finds me all wrong, but I am coming nearer the holy circle of the Treasury benches. I know that, although quite out of order, I have said enough to convey to 'the leader of the House (Sir George Foster) my opinion, and even though it is conveyed in that disordered manner, I hope he will take notice of wha't I have said.
As regards this resolution, I have only to say that, while there are thousands of farmers in my riding and I have to account to those farmers for anything I may say or do in this House, I say to my farmer constituents that, if they are not able to produce enough butter to furnish the people of this country with that very excellent article at a price within their reach they must not find fault with the Government for (permitting some other article to be manufactured and produced in Canada which the labouring (people and others who are not themselves producing can buy at a price that is not beyond their reach. My good friend from New Brunswick (Mr. Leger) said a moment ago that a difference of fifteen cents per pound was not worth speaking about. In a large family, about two pounds of butter per day is required; that is not big consumption, and that means thirty cents a day at even fifteen cents, and in a run of seven days that would amount to $2.10. Now, $2.10 out of the poor man's wages at the end of the week is a considerable amount, and if the difference is only fifteen cents per pound, if oleomargarine answers the same purpose for him and his family as the higher priced article, if it comes to the point where I have to vote on this question, I will support the resolution of the Minister of Agriculture.
Resolution reported.
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Minister of Agriculture) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 103, to amend the Oleomargarine Act, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Trade and Commerce-Bounties on petroleum, zinc, etc., administration of Act, $3,00-0.
['No doubt.']
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The total vote asked for the Department of Trade and Commerce, as shown on page 69, is $1,848,095.33. Then on page 71, under the heading " Demobilization," there is another item for the department, of $105,000. No doubt there is some explanation as to these items being under different headings.


George Green Foster: I will explain
that demobilization vote when we come to it. Certain appropriations were made from the demobilization vote for services which were given along that line by certain departments. I will explain more fully when we come to the item.
Canada Grain Act, Administration of, $1,000,0-00.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the condition generally as to the supply of wheat in Canada, in elevators, and so forth?


George Green Foster: I do not know that I can give my hon. friend an exact statement, hut if he will look at the Bulletin which is published by my department every week he will find an exact statement of the quantities and grains in the different elevators of the country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think private members get this Bulletin. It would be very interesting to read.
Sir GEORGE. FOSTER:	I should hope
they did, at least. It is a great blow to my pride if hon. members do not read that Bulletin almost as religiously as they do their ritual.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should be very glad
to read it, hut I do not get it.
Sir GEORGE. FOSTER: I shall see to it that my hon. friend gets a copy.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I get it, but it does not come very regularly.


George Green Foster: I do not see
why it does not.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am surprised also.


George Green Foster: I am sure if my hon. friend is on the list it must go to him.
Culling: timber, including an amount of $600 for superannuated cullers, $5,50-0.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: What is that for?


George Green Foster: It is the usual
vote. It is diminishing every year, and is fast approaching the vanishing point.


Mr. POWER:: How many cullers are
superannuated for $600?


George Green Foster: This is a vote for timber culling in the province of Quebec. It is a diminishing item. We are not taking on any new officials, and in a little time the office itself will completely disappear and the work will not be carried on any longer there, as it is not carried on in othei parts of the Dominion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is there only one office?


George Green Foster: Yes, there is
one active man there. The others are superannuated. They are well up in years, 81, 82, or 83 years of age I think, and they get a small amount each year.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Does this item include
expenses for examinations of cullers?


George Green Foster: This is the
whole expenditure.
Maintenance of terminal elevators and necessary equipment, $10,000.
'Sir GEORGE FOSTER:	The explanation of that item is this: there is a capital account in conection with the elevators. This item is not for maintenance, for the replacing, for instance, of machinery that is worn out; all that comes from the revenue itself. But if one of the elevators is not equipped with drying machinery, for instance, that is charged
10 p.m. to this capital account. The elevators, indeed, are practically all finished and the new apparatus that has to be added is never a large item. Last year the amount spent was $11,000. This year up to 29th February the amount spent was $895 only. Occasionally, some new device or apparatus comes out, which is necessary to put into an elevator. That would be charged to this capital account.


William Stevens Fielding: At what points are
these elevators?


George Green Foster: Vancouver,
Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, and the elevators at the head of the lakes.


William Stevens Fielding: All in the West.


George Green Foster: Yes, those that are under my department. The Railways have an elevator at Port Colborne, and there is a small one at Halifax. There was one in St. John, but it was burnt down.


William Stevens Fielding: There are questions
concerned with the Halifax elevator, but I presume they should come up on the Estimates of the Department of Railways.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister collect fees from these elevators?


George Green Foster: Yes. I think
it might be interesting to the House to know that for this whole service our permanent staff is 224, and the temporary staff 255, or 479 employees altogether. The pay for this staff amounts to $652,096. The expenses on the whole grain operations, including elevators, for the past fiscal year amounted to $937,521, and the revenue was $1,082,062. Taking all the elevators and their operation the whole grain staff employed in inspection, weighing, grading and everything connected with the operation of the elevators is paid for by the fees from these two branches, inspection and weighing fees, and the like of that, and there is a fairly good balance on the right side.


John Howard Sinclair: Why does the minister want more money if he has a balance to the good?


George Green Foster: When we get a vote we spend the money that Parliament gives us. The revenues are not spent as they come in by the department. Everything that comes in has to go into the consolidated revenue fund account. We cannot take out of that. We spend out of the vote that Parliament gives us and we put into the consolidated revenue fund everything that comes in. We do not handle any of the money at all; that goes to the bank.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not like the railways.


George Green Foster: This has a balance on the right side.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: iSuppose the minister had only the income and outgo in connection with this business, how would he have stood last year?


George Green Foster: The expenditures were $937,000 and the revenue $1,082,000 in round figures.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When will the minister fix the locus of the court of appeal in wheat grading and will he say whether it is to be at Port Arthur or Winnipeg?


George Green Foster: Although the
legislation has passed constituting a court of appeal it has not as yet been put into effect. It goes into effect upon a proclama-

tion being issued by the Governor in Council. Appeals from the decisions of the inspectors in respect to any grievances are dealt with by the old board of survey which has been in existence for a number of years and which has done that kind of work up to the present time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it the intention of the minister to take advantage of the legislation and establish this court which was thought necessary when the legislation was passed?


George Green Foster: It was a matter of legislation and was considered therefore a fit subject to be carried out practically. But it is a board which will bring a good deal more of expense and that expense is to be borne by the grain producers themselves. The comparatively small number of cases which come before the survey board, the very good manner in which they have carried on their business of examination and given their judgment in these matters, rather incline the Government not to incur the expense at present. Whilst there are two opinions about it in the West there has not been a very strong pressure to have a court of appeal established.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I noticed that when the Bill went through the House there was a vigorous competition between the head of the Lakes and Winnipeg. At the next session I was bold enough to say to the minister that he found it embarrassing to decide between these two factions and consequently the Bill was not brought into play. Possibly that has something to do with the economical ideas of the minister.


George Green Foster: If my hon.
friend's memory is as good in all respects as it is in that one he will recall that I very decidedly repudiated that as the motive in the matter. I am ready to give a decision whenever it is thought advisable to have the court constituted and brought into operation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The advisability and the establishing of the court are both in the power of the minister, and who shall come to tell him about the advisability? It rests with him entirely.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: Parliament gave that discretion to him and he will try to exercise it in the best possible manner.
Canada Year Book, 113,500.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is this money expended for staff, or printing, or to collect information?


George Green Foster: The information is collected by the staff of the Bureau of Statistics and the cost of the Year Book is the cost of the printing. There is nothing paid for the matter which goes into it. We get some very valuable monograms which are contributed by the writers without pay. Nothing is paid for the matter in the book. This is for the printing of 8,000 copies in English and 2,000 copies in French. The cost has run for the last six years at from $12,000 to $13,500.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Could the printing not be done at the Printing Bureau?


George Green Foster: It is done at the Bureau.


Henri Sévérin Béland: And the money is paid to the Printing Bureau?


George Green Foster: Yes, I think that is so. If it is not so I will make a note of it and let my hon. friend know.


Mr. I. H. SINCLAIR:: Is there any revenue from the book?


George Green Foster: There is not much , revenue. It is distributed quite largely to members of Parliament, libraries and boards of trade. Although there is a nominal price placed upon it the revenue which comes in from that source is not very large as is the case with most of our publications. We are striving now with several of the departments to limit the number for free distribution and increase the number that may be purchased by the public. There is a gradual increase in that respect although it is not very large. I think we ought to strive to make it much larger. With a book of that kind we are subject to quite a number of exchanges because we get similar books from different bodies and we must reciprocate. We make a pretty free distribution amongst libraries, chambers of commerce and institutions of that kind.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In Canada?


George Green Foster: In Canada and outside of Canada.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No copies are sent abroad?


George Green Foster: Yes, we send quite a large number of copies abroad, to the British Dominions and to a number of the principal countries as well.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, including Census, ?24'G,00'0.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a large
increase.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: We are commencing the work of the coming census, and the increase is entirely for that pur pose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When does the work begin?


George Green Foster: The census will be taken in June of next year but all the preliminary work-for example the printing or the schedules and everything of that kind-	.


William Stevens Fielding: During the present
year?


George Green Foster: -commences during the current year. The schedules must be ready for distribution by January and February of next year, so as to get them out through the country and in the hands of the enumerators in order that the enumeration may take place the following June.


John Howard Sinclair: Who will appoint the enumerators?


George Green Foster: The enumerators are appointed by the Civil Service Commission in conference with the officers of the Bureau of Statistics.
Development and Extension of Canadian Trade, $130,MO.


William Duff: This is a very important vote, but J notice it has been reduced by $20,000. Unless there is very good reason why this amount should be reduced from $150,000 to $130,000 it seems to me this is not very good policy on the part of the Government. If there is anything we all desire it is to see our foreign trade extended, and I would therefore like the minister .to explain why this vote has been reduced.


George Green Foster: The vote asked this year is for $130,000, a reduction of $20,000 from the vote of last year. The expenditure up to the 29th February, 1920, is $74,541. The details of the expenditure for 1919-20 include these items:	Industrial
moving pictures, including the purchase of films, cameras, chemicals and photo supplies generally; also salaries and travelling expenses of officials, $42,911; exhibition of industrial moving pictures in Canada, $4,623. An exhibition of Indian hides accounted for a small amount; and the Lyons fair and the Paris exhibit took $24,794. In addition there were the expenses on a mission to Spain of one of our commissioners,

Mr. Clarke. These items make up the amount of $74,541, that was provided for the extension and development of Canadian trade, and was expended last year along those lines, although it does not cover the amount expended for the whole of the services of the Canadian Trade Commissioners -we will come to that a little bit later, and my hon. friend will find there is a very considerable vote for the purpose. I am quite in sympathy with the idea that this is one vote as to which, at this particular time, we cannot afford to be too economical, and we have made what is considered a very generous estimate for that work. We must take into account the fact that during the last four or five years-four years anyway-the services of the trade commissioners have been to a certain extent interfered with, and on account of the war, we have been out of a number of countries where we had missions before. Now that the war has ceased and conditions are coming towards normal we are occupying again most of those countries, and we are also getting into other countries as well. Probably it might be just as Well for me for a few minutes to give an idea of the scope of our work to the extent that it has been undertaken for the present time. Outside of Canada, where we have our central offices and from which we direct our work, our trade commissioners in Great Britain are located in Glasgow, London, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. These trade commissioners have been carrying on their work there for a number of years, and they are now particularly active under the new conditions which are arising, resulting in part from the war. We have made an extension in Paris, with the idea of covering France. We have added to the High Commissioner's office there a trade commissioner who will devote himself particularly to the extension of 'our trade in France, and will give the whole of his time to trade work.
We have taken up our position again in Belgium and in Holland, where for the war years an office was simply kept but no particular trade work was possible to be done. We have a trade commissioner at Milan in Italy, one of our most capable young men, and we are using him at the present time in making a survey of conditions as they are along the Mediterranean coast. He extended his work so as to cover Spain for two or three months, and has made a very thorough study of conditions there-as thorough as it could be during

the time he devoted to it. His report, which is a very valuable one, is being published and given to our business men. At the present time, besides carrying on work in Italy, we have had him for a month in Greece looking into the conditions there- coming into contact with the business men, and making for us an investigation out of which will come a report as to trade possibilities in Greece.
Mr. Wilgress, who was in Vladivostok, has been recalled from there and with Mr. McLeod Clark is now making a pretty thorough examination of the conditions for trade possibilities and preparing for us the information which they got in the shape of reports from the countries along the Mediterranean border, and in Southern Russia, and in the new republics of Serbia, Czecho-Slovakia and Poland. These two men will be engaged for the next five months probably in making a very thorough survey of conditions in those countries where there are large possibilities opening up for our trade. The countries bordering on the Mediterranean we had very little to do with before the war, hut during the war we conducted extensive and very profitable operations with Rou-mania, Greece and Italy. The trade possibilities in that section of Europe are large and in future will. I think, tend a great deal to the advantage of our exchanges.
Then we have in Australia one of our oldest and best trade commissioners in the person of Mr. Ross, at Melbourne, and he has an assistant at Sydney. We have a trade commissioner in New Zealand, Mr. Beddoe, who was appointed sometime ago and who is doing very excellent work there. We have in China, a trade commissioner with a central office at Shanghai. In Japan we have one of our young men who was first trained in our university here, in our own department afterwards, and who is now engaged in his work in that country.
I may say that I am making it a sine qua non that the men who go to these foreign countries shall become thoroughly acquainted with the native languages. Our trade commissioner in Italy has now a comparatively thorough knowledge of Italian, he is also proficient in French, and for the last two or three months he has been studying Greek and is able to talk in a colloquial sense in that language. In the same way our agent in Japan, who was born in that country as it happens, is making himself thoroughly acquainted with the language. We have a commissioner in Brazil, a late appointment, and he has already made himself familiar with the language which is spoken there. Then we have a commissioner in Buenos Aires, a Mr. Webb. These gentlemen,, together with the commissioner in the West India Islands, with a central office at Barbadoes, and a commissioner lately sent to Cuba, make about the tally of trade commissioners in the foreign field.


John Howard Sinclair: It struck me that the commissioners mentioned are at very distant points, in the Far East, in Australia and in the Argentine, whereas we have nq commissioners in the neighbouring republic. Would my hon. friend favour placing some commissioners in the United States to promote trade with that country, which trade is so much larger than can possibly be developed at those distant points. Why should we go to the ends of the earth looking for trade when it is at our doors? For example, we purchase about $2,000,000 worth of goods a day from the United States and sell them roughly * about $1,000,000 worth a day. Does not the hon. minister think that the appointment of trade commissioners in the big trading centres, such as Chicago, New York and Boston, would enable us to widen our markets in that country and even restore the balance of trade in our favour? It is the greatest opportunity that we have, and in looking over this long list it strikes me as rather extraordinary that we do not find any trade commissioners in the cities of the United States. I think there is a representative of some kind in Washington, but in the interests of our trade with the United States would it not be well to have commissioners stationed there to help us develop our sales to that country?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend has raised a question which has often been before the department. Where you are so close that you can speak to your neighbour from your own doorstep it is not necessary to have an expensive organization. I have always taken the ground that the facilities for intercourse, and the information and knowledge so easily passing backwards and forwards between Canada and the United States, render it unnecessary for us to incur a heavy expense in establishing trade commissionerships in that country. The trade between ourselves and the United States is a trade between two peoples that understand each other very well, and have very frequent intercourse through their boards of trade, through their business men, through their commercial and financial transactions; and I have always thought that that should be taken into ac-

count. The moment you commence putting trade commissioners in the United States, with its large number of cities and its widely extended territory, you are embarking on a very large and expensive propaganda. The question is whether that is necessary or not. We do make use of the British consular agents in the various cities of the United States. We are in constant communication with them, and they with us; and they perform a very useful function in some respects where trade inquiries are necessary. We had also, during the war, to establish in Washington a special trade mission, which we called the War Trade Mission, and during the period of the war, particularly that portion of it in which the United States was engaged, when they made their great effort and found that their own resources magnificent as they were, and their productive powers great as they were, were not sufficient to give them quickly the equipment they needed, that trade mission performed a very useful service for Canada. Millions upon millions of dollars worth of contracts were, through the agency of that trade mission, procured for Canadian firms and for Canadian labour as well. I may say to my hon. friend that that mission is still at work in a somewhat modified form and, as will have been noticed, negotiations are at present going on looking towards the permanent establishment of a Canadian trade and diplomatic service, if you can call it such in Washington itself. We have also had for a year or more a publicity branch in New York. The work of this branch has had close connection with the Department of Trade and Commerce, and has had to do with replying to inquiries with reference to trade in various commodities with Canada and disseminating a great amount of information through the press, the Chambers of Commerce, and individual and corporate trading agencies. So that the United States has not been entirely neglected in that respect. It is an open question, what may be thought the best thing to do in the future, but the facts which I have outlined have to a considerable extent influenced the policy of the department. I may also take occasion to say that we are doing an unobtrusive but most important work in advertising Canada's resources, productive energy and enterprise, and actual processses of production, thriugti our moving-picture film service. During the last two years these films have been shown, I understand, to over six millions of people in the United States. The films are being shown also in England, Australia and 
New Zealand. I arranged a contract in England last year under which these films are to be shown on the theatre courses and in the film houses in Great Britain. That arrangement will be in full operation this year, and millions of people will see these pictures. Some of our films were shown at the Lyons fair last year. The city of Lyons gave us the use of the town hall, and our films were shown there every afternoon and evening of the two weeks that our exhibition was on. The hall was crowded and the showing of the films excited a great deal of interest. For instance, we have a complete set of films showing the waterpowers of Canada, developed, undeveloped, and in process of development; these create a keen interest in the minds of those who see them. One of our university professors, a member of the Research Council, took these films over to England and lectured on them in some of the cities there, creating much interest and doing much good in that way. During the Peace Conference I had these films, together with other exhibits, shown in a favourable position on the Champs Ely-sees in Paris. Besides the persons and institutions interested in them scientifically, I had the representatives of the different countries which took part in the negotiations at the Peace Conference see these films, and as a result much interest was manifested and many inquiries made with regard to the subjects of them. I have given a very imperfect sketch of this branch of our endeavour, but I am quite certain it is one of the least expensive and one of the most fruitful of the agencies which we are employing to make Canada and her resources known. I may add that we mix in with the films selected scenery, bits of the social and general life of the country so as to make the films interesting.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are these pictures taken by the Conservation Commission or are they one of the activities of my hon. friend's department?


George Green Foster: It is one of the activities of the Department of Trade and Commerce. If my hon. friend would take the time some day to visit the branch which carries on this work, at the corner of Wellington and Lyon streets, the officials there would he very glad to show him the films. I invite hon. members who have not already done so to visit that branch and see exactly what we are doing. We take the pictures ourselves; we develop the negatives, make the prints, and then send copies of the prints to the different countries that I have spoken

of. In the United States the exhibitions of these films costs us nothing; we simply provide the films and they are put through the different circuits without expense to us. In some respects we get a small revenue therefrom.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I was going to ask the
minister through what channels the pictures were circulated.


George Green Foster: Through the circuits of the different film houses.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister says that instead of involving expense, this branch secures a revenue for the department?


George Green Foster: The revenue at
the present time is small. But the main point is that the circulation of the films does not cost us anything. All those millions of people who see them are enabled to see them through their passing through the different circuits of those houses, and that costs us nothing at all. If we put up the right kind of films, those houses are very glad to get them. In our contract with the British firm, after certain expenses are deducted, we get a proportion of the profits, whatever they may happen to be.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understood the minister to say that the commercial agencies in Belgium had been re-opened. I know there was before the war an office in the city of Antwerp in front of the Central station. The occupant of 'this position died immediately before the war, I think in the year 1914, and he was not replaced. Has the minister information whether a new man has been appointed in that city?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend
must be a little mistaken. We had no office in Antwerp. Our office was at Rotterdam, and our trade commissioner at Rotterdam visited other points, including points in Belgium. He may have visited Antwerp, and he may have had an office there for an occasional visit. I am not sure about that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is an office at Antwerp, and the word "Canada" is in electric characters very visible every evening from all parts of the square in front of the Central station. I understood (Mr. Geleerd is the representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce at Rotterdam.


George Green Foster: I will tell my
hon. friend just how the matter stands. Mr. Geleerd was a clerk in the office at Rotterdam; and when at the outbreak of war the commissioner himself left, Mr. Geleerd was kept there so as to keep a 120
locus in quo and to do a certain amount of work. But he was not a trade commissioner; he was a clerk in the office, and he administered so far as he could whilst the war was on. A new incumbent has been allocated to that section of country, and for the time being this central office is at Rotterdam; but he is conducting an examination in Holland and Belgium, and the report that he gives of the result of his examination will enable us to decide what we shall do in the future as regards those two countries. 1 It may be that a different locus in quo will be given to him, and it may be that we may have to have two trade commissioners, or it may be that we may have to have fine trade commissioner and and an assistant for the two countries.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Do I understand that Mr. Geleerd is not working for the department any more?


George Green Foster: He is working for the department, but as a clerk, not as a trade commissioner.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is Mr. Geleerd's salary? I know Mr. Geleerd personally. I was in Belgium for a number of weeks, and he is a young man of, I believe, quite considerable commercial reading; he is proficient in Dutch, French, English and German, and a good knowledge of those four languages is required for any employee at Rotterdam. I should like also to know the name of the new incumbent and his salary.


George Green Foster: Mr. A. S. Bleak-ney is the new appointee for Rotterdam, and his salary is $3,000 with a living allowance of $500. He was appointed in March, 1920. He was trained in our department here, and he has a good knowledge of French. I do not appear to have the names and salaries of the staff, but I will get the information in regard to Mr. Geleerd for my hon. friend.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Geleerd was, as the minister says, in charge of the office during the war, and he was a very active young man who rendered numberless services, not only to myself, but to some other Canadians who were passing through on their way from Germany. I think he complained that his salary was a little small. I asked the question of him, and he thought he was not properly remunerated. He was in charge of the whole office, and I think he was performing the work in a satisfactory and gratifying manner.


George Green Foster: Yes, so far as the work could be carried on, he was very satisfactory to the department. I will get the information for my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: The Auditor General's Report, page Z-18, contains the name of Mr. Geleerd at Rotterdam, and his salary as acting trade commissioner for twelve months to March 31, 1919, is placed at $1,050.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am certainly very much gratified at the information the minister has given us and what he has told us about these pictures he is sending throughout the country. We are on very important items and dealing with a very important department and a very important minister. I would suggest to him that if there is anybody around this Chamber taking films now, the minister should see that his censor does not permit such films to go out showing the present complexion of the House when so much important business is before us. I would warn him not to allow a film of the present benches, and particularly of
his own side of the House, to go abroad.


George Green Foster: I will certainly make sure that if any film taker comes around; my hon. friend does not escape. The latter part df his remark is perhaps somewhat of a tribute to myself. Everybody thinks things are going on so well that they do not have to watch me.


William Duff: The hon. member for Antig-onish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) has suggested to the minister the advisability of having trade commissioners in some cities in the United States. I agree with my hon. friend in that respect. With the business which is being done, especially by merchants of the Maritime Provinces in Boston and New York, and having regard to the increased business that could be done in the United States, I think it is very desirable that we should have agencies in that country. My information is that we really have some sort of offices in both New York and Boston. I was told a few days ago that a gentleman by the name c' Colonel Cooper was in charge of the New York office. There is also an officer, I understand, at Boston to whom we are paying the princely sum of $1,800 to look after our interests. This gentleman' complained very bitterly a few days ago that it was impossible for him to do any work on that sum. It seems to me that a man who is looking after the interests of the Canadian people in Boston is

certainly deserving of consideration, and I think he should be far better paid. If there is such a man, and any information is that there is, it is a disgrace and a shame for the Government to pay him only $1,800 a year.


George Green Foster: So far as my
department is concerned, I have no officer in Boston and never have had. The Publicity Office in New York is not directly under my charge, but under the charge of the President of the Privy Council, I know Colonel Cooper who is in charge of the work there, and he is in constant communication with my department and contributes a large amount of valuable information on trade matters.


William Duff: iSome department of the
Government keeps an officer in Boston. If he is of no use, and the Government does not know he is there, they had better withdraw him. If he is there and is doing work ,for the people of Canada and for the business .men of the Maritime Provinces especially, we should pay him a sufficient amount so that he can have a proper staff to do his work. If he is not under the Department ,of Trade and Commerce, I should like the .minister to make inquiries and find out whether this man is a Trade Commissioner or what he is.


George Green Foster: He is not a
Trade Commissioner, but I shall be very glad to make inquiry.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In view of the very good services rendered by the gentleman I referred to a few moments ago, Mr. Geleerd, in Rotterdam, and as he is the father of a family and devotes the whole of his time to that office, performing duties which are lhore than clerical-he did during the war at all events-I would humbly suggest to the minister that he take into consideration a slight increase, say 25 per cent per annum, in the remuneration of this gentleman, as he receives only $1,000 a year.


George Green Foster: I will take that into consideration.


Mr. OOPP:: What is being done to develop trade with the West Indies?


George Green Foster: In the last ten years there has been a big development in trade with the West Indies. 1 have not the figures of the trade before me, but I remember going over them a short time ago. As the committee knows, we framed a preferential arrangement with certain of the West India Islands in 1912. That has

a currency of ten years, running out in 1022, and it has worked excellently well. It did not embrace all of the West India Islands. Jamaica did not give any preference to commercial exports from Canada although we gave to Jamaica, and have continued to do so up to the present time, the benefit of our preference to the other West India Islands. Lately it has been decided to have a conference similar to the one we had in 1912, but this time between all of the West India Islands, including Jamaica, the Bahamas, Bermuda, British Honduras, and of course Demerara. The arrangements are pretty well completed, and the date of the conference has been set for the 31st of May. On that date we hope to have a fully representative set of delegates from all of the British administrations I have mentioned.


William Stevens Fielding: The minister did not mention Trinidad; is that included?


George Green Foster: Yes. We hope also to have a representative of the British Board of Trade. The subjects the conference will take up are communications, transport and cable, and trade relations, the object being to enlarge, if we possibly can, the volume of trade between us by an extension of the preference. We hope for good results from the conference.
Mr. J ,H. SINCLAIR:	Where will it be
held?


George Green Foster: In Ottawa.


William Duff: There is no regular communication with the Bahama islands, and 1 would suggest to the minister that the advisability of bettering the communication be taken up at the conference.


George Green Foster: That is one of the subjects for discussion.


William Duff: I notice we have an item of $38,933.33 for West India cable. Does the Government pay that amount towards the cable service with the West Indies?


George Green Foster: 
William Duff: I am very glad to hear the minister say that the cable service will be resumed, because for the last year or so it has been very unsatisfactory. Sometimes it takes as much as a week for a cable to go from Canada to the West Indies and the reply to come Oa'Uc, and (hat seriously interferes with business. It is absolutely necessary for business men that their cables shall arrive at their destinations quickly, so that they can get replies as soon as possible. Competition is keen and it is necessary to catch the steamers that are sailing between Canada and the West Indies, and sometimes the cables are only sent twenty-four hours before the steamer sails from Halifax or St. John.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the idea of voting this item "development and extension of Canadian trade " by itself and a little later, having an item which concludes with " other expenditur es connected with the extension of Canadian trade"? Both items appear to relate to the same subject.


George Green Foster: They are the
same subject to some extent, but the second one has particular reference to the old service which has been carried on for a long series of years and which has been devoted

entirely to the work of the trade commis-sionerships. The different items of expenditure I read were for development alone; that line-films, exhibitions, and the like of that. In view of that there seems to be an advantage in keeping the trade commissioner-ship work by itself so that we can follow it by comparison. The other vote is allocated to the special and varied services.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Propaganda
work?


George Green Foster: Yes, propaganda work.


William Stevens Fielding: Have we a commissioner in Newfoundland?


George Green Foster: We have a commissioner in Newfoundland. He was appointed under the regime of my hon. friend, I think, and he is there yet.


William Stevens Fielding: We had one years ago.


George Green Foster: Yes. At the present time he is at St. Pierre Miquelon. We sent him there to look into the possibilities of the trade which may be developed with Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: In connection with the Glasgow service I see there is mention made of "J. D. Lithgow, refund." I understand that Mr. Lithgow has retired from the service. Am I correct in that?


George Green Foster: Yes, he was
superannuated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In what particulars do the functions of the trade commissioner resemble the duties of a consul general?


George Green Foster: They have no
diplomatic functions and they confine themselves entirely to matters of' trade. They keep in communication with different departments of the Government and they keep in direct communication with business houses through their districts. They make reports here, they furnish information in reference to Canada at the other end, and do everything possible to advance the trade of Canada in their particular districts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are they appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


George Green Foster: Yes.
Honorary Advisory Council of Industrial and Scientific Research, salaries and expenses, including printing and stationery, and the collection and distribution of information, and for studentships, fellowships, special problems and forestry studies, $120,000.
[Sir George Poster.!


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is that in connection
with the lecommendation made last year by the Scientific Committee Research?


George Green Foster: It was formed
before that but it is in the line of the same.
Patent Record, $40,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the minister still
publishing that bulky book that we used to get from the patent office and which nobody wants?


George Green Foster: When my hon. friend says nobody wants it, maybe we do not want it here but it seems to be an absolute necessity for those who are interested in getting out patents. The patent office is of course a paying office and the surplus over expenditure is quite large.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not bringing this up for the first time. It has been before the House quite frequently, and I thought that it was, if not struck out altogether, curtailed in circulation.


George Green Foster: 
George Green Foster: There has been no money as yet paid on that account. It was a contract entered into during the war when it was absolutely impossible for us to get the linen yarns and threads which were necessary for certain things in connection with fishermen's nets and manufacturing industries. We entered into a contract by which we agreed to give a certain bounty for three years on linen yarns of a certain measurement or size, according to the measurements they have as to fineness. A sum of $75,000 was set aside as the maximum which should be paid in three years. Of that, $25,000 was to be the maximum paid in one year and the subsidy was to end the third year.


John Howard Sinclair: Nothing -has been paid yet.


George Green Foster: No adjustments have been made, but the industry itself was established and was carried on. It was decided that no subsidy should be paid until the war had ceased. That was based on the ground that prices were quite high

whilst the war was being carried on, but that a hard time would come when the war ceased and the war prices fell, and tihe bounty was guaranteed to them against loss. I am just now taking up the matter as to arrangements for payment. If the committee would like the item to stand, I will agree to that course and furnish the explanation later.
Weights and Measures, ?26 9,2-65.


George Green Foster: This is a branch which has been transferred to my department in the different allocations that were given to some of the services that came from the Inland Revenue Department. It will be seen that there is a decrease from the old vote.
Gas and Electricity; salaries of inspectors and assistant inspectors of gas and electricity;- rent, fuel, travelling expenses for gas and electricity inspection, and the purchase of instruments, etc., $138,90'0.


George Green Foster: The gas and electricity service also came to my department in the allocation of services from the Inland Revenue Department, and the vote is just about the same as last year. This is a branch which more than pays its expenses and yields a surplus. The weights and measures branch does not quite make -up its expenses; the two branches together pretty nearly do so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When this item was before the House last year I brought to the notice of the minister who had Charge of the electricity branch, the fact that I was receiving a great many complaints, that we have no proper inspection of electric light companies, etc., in my part of the country. I forget -who was the minister to. whom I addressed myself at that time, but I remember I was promised that a better state of things would prevail. I now bring to my hon. friend's notice the fact that there is no* government inspection in eastern Nova Scotia, and ask him to see to it that the proper officer is instructed to look into- the situation in that part of the country.


George Green Foster: If my hon. friend will give me the locality to which he refers and will let me know the facts I will have them looked into.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I refer to the three towns of Sydney, North Sydney and Sydney Mines, where the electric light companies do pretty much as they please. The electric light meters in those towns may or may not be'right but there is no government official there to establish the fact. We have had the experience of no lights being used at
all for a whole month, or perhaps two months, and yet when the bill was presented it was for as large an amount as if there had been a consumption of light all the time. There have been a great many complaints, and we would like to have some sort of effective Government control so that the companies concerned may be more careful.


William Stevens Fielding: Does this item apply to the inspection of the operations of companies of a provincial character? I suppose it does. I think the companies to which my hon. friend refers are the local companies, and I was wondering Whether Dominion inspection applies to them. I suppose, as this is an inspection service, it would apply to all, but I am not clear on the point.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the .point was raised last year when I brought the matter to the notice of the department. My recollection is that the minister then in charge of the branch said they could exercise control regardless of how the company was incorporated.


George Green Foster: I think that is right. There is an inspection district, the central or head office being in Halifax. However, I will make inquiries and let my hon. friend know. I move that the committee rise and report progress.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the committee rises may I ask my hon. friend whether there was any vote taken last year under the heading of demobilization? I notice that there is a vote of $38,463,400 for this purpose on the last page of the Estimates.


George Green Foster: I think a general vote was taken, and out of that vote allocations were made for certain classes of war expenditure which were entailed on the departments because of the Military Service Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I presume we will be able to get the details of that expenditure before we are asked to consider this item.


George Green Foster: No doubt.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE_____THIRD

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 40, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 59 (from the Senate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of 'George Henry Shemilt." (Without	amendment).-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 60 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Bertram Hall.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 61 (from the Senate), for the relief of Nell Louise Dennis. (Without amendment).-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 62 (from the Senate), an Act for the relief of Harry Ernest Wright.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 63 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henri Delphe Parizeau.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 64 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gele Karafel.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona.
Bill No. 65 (from the Senate), for the relief of William George Uren.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 66 (from the Senate), for the relief of Meryl Adams.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona) .
Bill No. 70 (from the Senate), for the relief of Herbert Walter Ecclestone.-Mt. Pedlow.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 75 (from the Senate), for the relief of Albert Harvey McBride.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 79 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alexander Scougall.-Mr. Mo-wat.
Bill No. 81 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ada Mabel Sanderson.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 82 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Albert Green.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 83 (from the Senate), for the relief of Emily Cruickshank.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 84 (from the Senate), for the relief of-Cyril Graham Sinclair.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 86 (from the Senate), for the relief of Richard Ernest Anderson.-Mr. Cronyn.
On the motion of 'Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
Monday, May 3, 1920.